Services
Same person, every layer. Pick the mode that fits the engagement — not the other way around.
Most consultants pick a lane and stay in it. I don't. The work I take usually needs senior judgement in more than one place — hands on keys here, lead the team there, sit in once a week somewhere else — so the engagement model bends to fit, not the other way around. Four modes, one operator.
Build & Operate
(most involvement) You hand off the spec; I take it from there. End-to-end ownership of build, ship, support, and ongoing maintenance — including deciding what to build when the spec leaves something ambiguous. Best for clients who need delivery, not headcount.
Best for
- ·Founders without a technical co-founder
- ·Companies that don't want to hire a full mobile team
- ·Clients with a clear product vision but no engineering arm
- ·Companies whose engineering arm is busy with other priorities
What you get
- ·End-to-end ownership of the build
- ·Production releases and post-launch operating
- ·Architecture decisions made in your interest, not deferred
- ·Documentation that survives me leaving
I build the foundation — the architecture, the patterns, the hardest pieces, the deployment pipeline — then transition ownership to your team with documentation, training, and a defined handoff.
Best for
- ·Teams that have junior engineers but no senior to anchor the codebase
- ·Internal-tools projects where the long-term owner is operations
- ·Companies who can hire but can't hire fast enough to start on time
What you get
- ·A working foundation, not a slideware spec
- ·Patterns the team can extend without me
- ·A defined handoff with documentation and (where useful) pairing
You provide the team; I provide the architecture, the cadence, the code review, the technical decision-making, and the executive translation layer. Functions like a fractional engineering lead or architect-on-retainer.
Best for
- ·Companies whose CTO is overextended
- ·Teams that need senior judgement but can't justify a full FTE
- ·Offshore or hybrid teams that need an onshore lead
- ·Engineering orgs in transition between leads
What you get
- ·A senior in the room for the decisions that matter
- ·Code review on the changes you actually need reviewed
- ·Translation between engineering and the rest of the business
- ·A predictable working cadence
Advise & Review
(least involvement) Architecture reviews, technical due diligence, hiring loops, code audits, vendor evaluation, periodic check-ins. The lightest-touch mode and frequently a trial for deeper engagement.
Best for
- ·Funded startups whose founder is technical but stretched
- ·Investors needing technical DD on a target
- ·Companies evaluating offshore or vendor proposals
- ·Teams who just want a senior to sanity-check architectural decisions monthly
What you get
- ·Clear written assessments
- ·A second-opinion sounding board on the hard calls
- ·Pattern recognition from having seen the same problem at five other companies
Most real engagements end up somewhere on the spectrum, not strictly in one bucket. Engagements that start as Advise & Review frequently expand into Lead & Coordinate or Build & Operate once trust is established. Both are normal — no re-contracting needed.
Worth hiring me for · Not worth hiring me for
✓ Worth hiring me for
- ·Custom mobile apps — Android-first, KMM cross-platform, native iOS through partners
- ·Hardware-integrated software — BLE devices, IoT companions, connected consumer products
- ·Regulated-industry builds — Class I/II SaMD, HIPAA, fintech, FDA/PCI/SOC 2
- ·Modernization of legacy mobile apps — Java → Kotlin, on-prem → cloud
- ·Cloud architecture and migrations — AWS-native builds, hybrid on-prem migrations, CI/CD from zero
- ·Technical leadership on a team you already have — fractional architect, cadence, review, hiring loops
- ·Architecture review and due diligence — code audits, vendor evaluation, M&A technical DD
- ·0-to-1 founder support — technical co-founder substitute, MVP through first 10k users
- ·Agency or consultancy overflow — senior who can plug in at IC, lead, or architect level
- ·Multi-team coordination — onshore + offshore + vendor + executive
- ·Complex third-party integrations — payment/lending networks, identity providers, BLE/SDK, CMS
- ·AI-assisted engineering adoption — practical, secure rollout of Claude, Cursor, Copilot, and Amazon Q
✗ Not worth hiring me for
go to Squarespace, Webflow, Shopify, or Fiverr
- ·A marketing or brochure website
- ·A simple WordPress / Squarespace / Wix site setup
- ·A standard Shopify store with off-the-shelf themes
- ·A logo, brand identity, or pure design work
- ·A landing page for a newsletter signup
- ·Form-and-email automations a no-code tool can handle
- ·Anything where the entire problem is "make the website look nicer"
- ·SEO content writing or generic copywriting
Rule of thumb: If a smart non-engineer could build it on a no-code platform in a weekend — you don't need a solution architect. If the answer is "well, sort of, but…" — that's where I come in.
How an engagement typically runs
- Discovery call. 20–30 minutes, free. You describe the problem; I ask the questions I'd ask a senior on my own team. Sometimes the right answer is "you don't need me" — I'll say so.
- Scoping doc. I write up what I heard, the engagement mode I'd recommend, the deliverables, the milestones, and the risks. Scoping conversations are free; the engagement letter is where commitment begins.
- Engagement letter. Signed scope, deliverables, payment terms, IP, confidentiality, termination.
- Kickoff. Whatever the engagement requires — pairing on the existing code, sitting in on stand-ups, setting up the CI pipeline. The first two weeks are calibration.
- Working cadence. Weekly check-ins as default, more often if the engagement is heavy-hands. Async-first; meetings only when async won't carry the decision.
Common questions
How is this different from hiring a contractor?
A contractor fills a seat; I own an outcome. The usual contractor deal is "tell me exactly what to build and I'll build that." Mine is closer to "here's the problem — I'll make the architecture calls, build the hard parts, and tell you when the spec is wrong." If what you need is hands to execute a fully-specified plan, a contractor is cheaper and you should hire one. If the hard part is the judgement — what to build, how to structure it, what'll break in a year — that's the line where I'm worth it.
Why not just hire a full-time senior engineer?
If you can, often you should — and I'll tell you that on the discovery call if it's true. I'm the better answer in three cases: you can't hire fast enough to start on time, you need senior judgement in more than one place at once (architecture here, team lead there, a review somewhere else), or the work is intense for a few months and then it isn't. Paying a full-time salary for a part-time-shaped problem is how good engineers end up bored and expensive.
Do you work with teams I already have — including offshore?
Yes; that's the Lead & Coordinate mode, and it's some of the work I'm proudest of. On the Lilly Tempo platform I ran a 10+ person offshore Android team across a 24-hour development cycle — onshore decisions handed off at end of day, offshore continuation overnight, integration reviewed the next morning. That only works when the architecture and the patterns are documented well enough for people in another time zone to build against them without drifting. I bring that structure; your team brings the throughput.
What does a working cadence actually look like?
Async-first. Weekly check-ins as the default, more often when the engagement is heavy-hands, fewer when it's advisory. Meetings only when async won't carry the decision. You'll always know what I'm working on and what I'm blocked on — the operating rhythm is part of the deliverable, not an afterthought.
Who owns the code and the IP?
You do. Scope, deliverables, payment terms, IP ownership, confidentiality, and termination are all settled in the engagement letter before any committed work starts — that's the whole point of having one. I build software designed to be owned by someone else: documented to survive me leaving, structured so your team can extend it without me in the room. Hand-off is a feature, not a goodbye.
Do you take equity?
Default is fee-based. For early-stage founder engagements — the technical-co-founder-substitute kind — equity or a hybrid arrangement is a conversation, not a no. I've been a co-founder; I understand why an early company wants to conserve cash and align incentives. We'd settle the structure in scoping, in writing, before the work starts. What I won't do is take equity in place of being clear about what I'm actually committing to.
How do we start?
A discovery call — 20 to 30 minutes, free. You describe the problem; I ask the questions I'd ask a senior on my own team. Sometimes the honest answer is "you don't need me," and I'll say so. If it's a fit, I write up a scoping doc — the mode I'd recommend, the deliverables, the milestones, the risks — and the engagement letter follows from that. Book a discovery call ↗
Have a project that needs senior judgement?