From our SaaS audits
What we find inside SaaS companies
Patterns from the technical due diligences we run for investors and boards.
Newsletter
Field notes from technical due diligence, for people who invest in software companies. Three findings, three board questions and a word from Andreas Creten, every few weeks.
Get the next issueFrom our SaaS audits
Patterns from the technical due diligences we run for investors and boards.
A practical guide to evaluating fractional CTO providers in Belgium: the three criteria that matter most, how the four provider types differ, what an engagement should cost, and when a full-time hire is the better call.
A good technical due diligence report is smaller than you expect, separates fact-checked observations from labelled judgement, and answers the specific questions your deal depends on. No score. The real test: does it change what you do on Monday morning?
What over 190 SaaS audits reveal about the technical risks that restructure software acquisition deals, and how to assess them before signing. Real data on documentation debt, testing gaps, key person risk, and the five findings that change deal terms.
A mobile app, past its usefulness, was days from being phased out. One email reversed the decision. No discussion. No input from engineering. This is what happens when decision-making drifts too far from the work.
We smile at the 18th-century crowd for being swept up by a box with a man inside, yet today it's easy to hand ChatGPT a vague idea and treat the PRD it returns as gospel. Generative AI is genuinely powerful. We get the best from it when we bring both enthusiasm and a critical eye.
Developers don't skip standards because they're careless, they skip them because there are fifteen things to remember and the code was the hard part. The real question isn't which tasks your LLM handles well. It's what's still slipping through ungated.
The AI wave is here, and the industry is already splitting into two: those adapting fast and those falling behind. The gap is widening quickly.
Last week, we deleted 16,000 lines of code, rewrote 11,500, migrated frameworks, ripped out React, and swapped our entire CSS setup with AI. It took less than 6 hours.
Technical debt used to justify meetings, trade-offs, and dedicated sprints. AI has changed that. Cleanup is now fast, cheap, and continuous. Teams that stop debating and start fixing unlock faster delivery and better outcomes.
Conductor by Melty Labs makes parallel agent workflows practical by running multiple agents with separate tasks simultaneously. The trade-offs are real but manageable, and this is where development is heading.
A couple of months ago, I was copy-pasting prompts into ChatGPT. Now I'm shipping features, running tests, managing branches, and keeping documentation alive, with a team of agents doing the heavy lifting. All by myself.
Legacy codebases are messy, undocumented, and full of decisions nobody remembers making. But if you can explain it to a new developer, you can onboard an AI and that changes everything.
Software development's feedback loop has compressed from years to minutes, but QA remains the last bottleneck, the one place still dependent on human judgment. AI is rapidly closing that gap, and before the year is out, that final human checkpoint may no longer be necessary.
Agile was supposed to free us from bureaucracy. Many teams just rebuilt it with better branding. Now, AI-driven development is forcing the uncomfortable question: Were we ever truly agile, or just managing slow feedback loops?
This is Part 2 of Bots and Boundaries, a three-part series on AI agents in open source.