Problem-led

Fix an existing app before every risky release gets more expensive.

If your app keeps breaking, Shipward starts by working out whether the safest next move is to recover the current codebase, contain the risky parts, recommend a rewrite, or call the repo unsupported.

Who this is for

Founder-led SaaS teams with a live MVP that now feels brittle.
Teams carrying a backlog of regressions, release anxiety, and architecture uncertainty.
Businesses that need a real decision before spending more on patching or rewriting.

Symptoms that usually trigger the audit

Small changes keep breaking unrelated flows.
Missing tests or weak release checks make the next deploy feel risky.
No one can explain the architecture well enough to scope work confidently.
The app was inherited, vibe-coded, AI-built, or assembled too quickly to trust without a review.

Possible outcomes

Recover — the app can be stabilized with a bounded next step.
Contain — the risky areas need isolation before broader work continues.
Rewrite — the current system shape is too costly or unsafe to keep building on.
Unsupported — the repo falls outside the fit, access, or handling boundary.

What you receive

Recoverability decision
Risk inventory
Architecture and delivery-readiness summary
Test and deployment gap analysis
Fixed-scope remediation estimate
Evidence bundle

When we recommend rewrite

Architecture debt is so concentrated that a bounded remediation slice would not buy back meaningful safety.
The release path is too fragile to justify incremental change without larger replacement work.
The current system relies on unsupported stack or access assumptions that break the engagement boundary.

Start with the audit, not with another blind patch cycle.

The audit is the entry point when you need to fix a live app without pretending every problem has the same answer.

If the system is recoverable, Shipward scopes the smallest credible next remediation slice. If it is not, the report says so plainly.

See the recoverability audit Request a recoverability audit

Can this codebase be saved before you fund a rewrite?

Use Shipward when you need an evidence-backed answer on whether a brittle codebase should be recovered, contained, rewritten, or left unsupported.

Rewrite vs refactor for a brittle app

Shipward helps teams decide between rewrite and refactor by auditing the current app, mapping risk concentration, and scoping the next honest move.

Technical debt audit for brittle software

Shipward provides a technical debt audit for teams that need to understand risk concentration, architecture debt, and whether the current app should be stabilized or rewritten.