Codebase & Architecture
The architecture your team can run today, with room to split later
Microservices, modular monolith, or a single codebase: we choose based on your team, budget, and growth plans, and we write down why.
You get a written recommendation to keep, restructure, or split your current system, with the cost of each option.
Sound familiar?
- 01
You split into microservices early, and now a simple feature touches five services and three deployments.
- 02
Your monolith has grown into one tangled block where every change breaks something unrelated.
- 03
Services call each other over the network with no contracts, timeouts, or retry rules.
- 04
Traffic between internal services isn't authenticated, because "it's all inside our network."
- 05
New developers need weeks before they can ship anything.
- 06
Nobody can explain why the system looks the way it does.
The cost of waiting
The cost of the wrong architecture
Too much architecture means paying for servers, deployments, and engineers to maintain complexity your traffic doesn't need. Too little means every new feature takes longer than the last. Either way, the cost grows each quarter you leave it alone.
Our approach
How we choose
| Approach | Fits when | Watch out for |
|---|---|---|
| Monolith | Small team, early product, low maintenance budget, need for fast rebuilds | Turns into a tangle without module boundaries |
| Modular monolith | Growing product, several teams, business domains becoming clear | Needs discipline so modules don't reach into each other |
| Microservices | Independent teams, parts with very different scaling or release needs | Network setup, service-to-service security, tracing, deployment overhead, higher running cost |
For many companies, we recommend a monolith built from clearly separated modules. It costs less to maintain, deploys simply, and can be rebuilt quickly when something goes wrong. The module boundaries are set from day one, so any module that later needs its own scaling or release cycle can become a separate service without a rewrite.
When microservices are the right call, splitting the code is the first step of many. Networking between services, authentication between services, timeouts and retries, tracing, and deployment all need designing, and we include them in the architecture from the start.
We pick languages and frameworks the same way: by workload, by the libraries it needs, and by the skills your team has or can hire. A stack your team can't maintain becomes a cost later.
Before and after
Before
After
- Before: A feature touches five repositories
- After: A feature lives in one module with clear boundaries
- Before: Internal services trust each other blindly
- After: Every service-to-service call is authenticated
- Before: New developers take weeks to ship
- After: One documented structure that a new developer can follow
- Before: Architecture decisions live in old chat threads
- After: Decision records with options, trade-offs, and reasons
Deliverables
What you get
- An architecture document with the reasoning behind each major decision
- Module and service boundaries mapped to your business domains
- Coding standards and a folder structure the whole team follows
- A code review process that checks every change against the architecture
- A migration path from your current structure, if you already have one
FAQ
Questions teams ask before hiring us
01We already have microservices. Is it too late?
No. Sometimes the fix is better networking and security between services. Sometimes it's merging services that never needed to be separate. The review tells you which.
02Won't a monolith limit us later?
A monolith with clear module boundaries can be split one module at a time when a part of the product needs it.
Next step
Questioning your architecture?
We'll review it and tell you whether to keep it, restructure it, or split it, with the cost of each option.