Senior technical second opinion · Architecture Review
Architecture Review before costly technical decisions.
For one expensive technical decision that needs repository, deployment, vendor, or system inspection before more time is spent.
Docker
AWS
Google Cloud- Price
- INR 24,999
- Support
- Architecture Review
- Fit-check
Fit-confirmed support
Architecture Review
INR 24,999
per session
Decision lens: Choose architecture review only when one decision is expensive enough to justify focused inspection and a written roadmap.
Current status: Professional service · scoping required
Ready now: One concrete codebase, architecture decision, vendor choice, or product direction reviewed after a pre-session questionnaire.
No automated checkout: WhatsApp fit-check before payment.
Fit audit
Before choosing Architecture Review, compare the support surface.
The right support path is not the most expensive path. It is the smallest support layer that changes the work you can finish, review, and explain.
Read first: The public syllabus stays available without signup, email gate, checkout, or login.
Choose optional support only if it changes output: An optional support path must improve the learner artifact: repository, demo, roadmap, project review, or workshop output.
No outcome promise: The page may describe support and proof, but not placement, salary, hiring access, or hidden partnership claims.
Public proof
Stay public if reading is enough.
Use the 20 lessons, blog, glossary, and reading paths first. Do not pay before you know what support would change.
INR 0
Lower layer
Mentorship may already be enough.
If Mentorship can produce the needed proof outcome, start there instead of overpaying for founder time.
INR 49,999
This path
Architecture Review changes one specific layer.
An engineer, founder, or technical lead with a specific decision expensive enough to justify a serious second opinion. Proof outcome: A 2-hour review, 5-page roadmap, prioritized risks, and honest what-to-skip recommendations.
INR 24,999
Upgrade only if
Workshop changes the work.
Move higher only when Architecture Review is too thin for the support, accountability, or review surface you actually need.
INR 2L–5L
Operating model
Architecture Review works only when one decision is expensive enough.
This path is for engineers, founders, and technical leads who do not need curriculum, but do need focused inspection before committing to a technical direction.
No support path is sold as magic. The learner or institution brings context, ABCsteps provides the support surface, and the final standard is inspectable proof.
Input
What you bring
Bring a repository, diagram, vendor choice, deployment concern, or architecture decision with enough context to inspect.
Fit-check
What gets confirmed first
The fit-check scopes the question, confirms the review surface, and avoids selling a session when the question is too vague.
Delivery
How support is delivered
Delivery runs through a pre-session questionnaire, a focused 2-hour review, written roadmap, and a 30-day async follow-up window.
Proof
What should exist after
The outcome should be a 5-page roadmap, prioritized risks, 30-60-90 direction, and honest what-to-skip recommendations.
Stay lower if
Mentorship already solves it.
Do not choose Architecture Review if Mentorship can already create the proof outcome you need.
Choose this if
Architecture Review changes the artifact.
Choose this path only when it improves the expected proof outcome: A 2-hour review, 5-page roadmap, prioritized risks, and honest what-to-skip recommendations.
Upgrade only if
Workshop is truly needed.
Move above Architecture Review only when the higher support surface changes the work more than this path can.
What changes in practice
Architecture Review converts a risky decision into an inspected plan.
This path is not a beginner class. It is a professional second opinion for a codebase, system boundary, provider choice, deployment plan, or AI/cloud direction where guessing is expensive.
Decision lens: Choose architecture review only when one decision is expensive enough to justify focused inspection and a written roadmap.
Pre-work
The question is scoped before the call.
The review starts with a questionnaire, repo or diagram context, decision options, and the risk you want inspected.
Session
Two hours are spent on evidence.
Architecture talk is tied to repository structure, runtime boundaries, provider choices, logs, deployment shape, and concrete constraints.
Roadmap
You leave with what to do and what to skip.
The output is a roadmap, prioritized risks, 30-60-90 direction, and explicit non-goals so the team avoids expensive wandering.
Before you message
Make the first WhatsApp message useful.
The fastest enrollment conversation is not a sales call. It is a fit-check with enough context to decide whether the public syllabus is enough, or whether Architecture Review will actually change your output.
This is still a static page: no form, no checkout, no account, no hidden learner database. Send the context directly on WhatsApp only when you are ready.
01 · Level
Current starting point
Share the system, repository, vendor choice, deployment risk, or architecture decision you want inspected.
Send: the architecture decision, repo/diagram status, and why the decision is expensive.
02 · Time
Weekly study runway
A review is useful only when the material can be inspected before or during the session.
Send: what I can share before the session: repo, diagram, logs, screenshots, or decision notes.
03 · Proof
Target decision
Name the decision artifact you need after the review: roadmap, risk list, stack decision, or what-to-skip plan.
Send: the review outcome I need: roadmap, prioritized risks, 30-60-90 plan, or decision memo.
04 · Boundary
What you expect from support
Be clear why one focused review is enough, or whether the question needs ongoing mentorship instead.
Send: why a single review is enough and what should be decided after it.
Current delivery
Choose only when this delivery solves the need.
These pages state what can be delivered now, who the right-fit learner or institution is, and what proof should come out of the engagement.
Current status
Professional service · scoping required
Ready now
One concrete codebase, architecture decision, vendor choice, or product direction reviewed after a pre-session questionnaire.
Right-fit learner/team
An engineer, founder, or technical lead with a specific decision expensive enough to justify a serious second opinion.
Proof outcome
A 2-hour review, 5-page roadmap, prioritized risks, and honest what-to-skip recommendations.
Value split
What the support changes.
Every support path must earn its price by changing the learner's work, institution output, or project decision, not by hiding the syllabus. Use these four checks before choosing this path.
Ready now
Current delivery is explicit.
One concrete codebase, architecture decision, vendor choice, or product direction reviewed after a pre-session questionnaire.
Support value
The fee buys guided support.
A senior-level review of your project, codebase, or architecture decision — for engineers who do not need the course but need a serious second opinion
Proof outcome
The engagement must leave evidence.
A 2-hour review, 5-page roadmap, prioritized risks, and honest what-to-skip recommendations.
Fit guard
This support path is not for everyone.
Beginners — this assumes you can articulate a real project / codebase / decision
Best for
- Senior engineers debugging an architecture decision
- Founders who want a sanity check on a technical direction before committing
- Tech leads who want external validation of a system design
- Engineers in transition (new role, new stack) who want guidance, not curriculum
Not the right fit if
- Beginners — this assumes you can articulate a real project / codebase / decision
- Anyone who wants the curriculum support layer (Job-Ready, Cohort, or Mentorship is the right path)
What you receive
Included with Architecture Review
A pre-session questionnaire one week before the session
A 2-hour video session with Divyanshu walking through your project / decision
A 5-page written roadmap document with prioritized recommendations
Two follow-up async questions over the next 30 days
Honest "what to skip" callouts — not just additions
Honest exclusions
- No ongoing engagement after the 30-day async window — for that, choose Mentorship
- Implementation is on your team; this is review, not delivery
Delivery proof
What this support path actually helps you practice.
The support path is useful only if it turns study into inspectable work: repositories, demos, review notes, deployment decisions, and project explanations.
Tool and platform logos are context references only: no affiliation, endorsement, interview access, hiring promise, salary promise, or placement guarantee.
System review
The decision gets inspected.
The session focuses on architecture choices, runtime boundaries, deployment shape, and the risks hidden in the current plan.
Codebase surface
Evidence matters more than opinion.
Repository structure, commit history, configuration, and local run path are stronger inputs than abstract architecture talk.
Product boundary
AI and cloud choices stay practical.
The roadmap prioritizes what to implement, what to defer, and where an external service is genuinely worth the dependency.
How a typical engagement runs
From enquiry to outcome.
- 01
WhatsApp enquiry
Send a one-paragraph description of your project, the decision you face, and the level of review you want — codebase, system design, or vendor choice.
- 02
Pre-session questionnaire
A short questionnaire one week before the session — repository access, architecture diagram (if available), specific questions you want answered.
- 03
The 2-hour session
A focused video session walking through your project. Honest feedback, alternatives considered, and clear "what to skip" callouts.
- 04
Roadmap document
Within 5 working days, a 5-page written document with prioritized recommendations, risk callouts, and a 30-60-90 plan.
- 05
30-day async window
Two follow-up async questions over the next month — usually about something you tried after the session and want a sanity check on.
Honest answers
FAQ
What kind of projects do you review?
Web/cloud/AI products primarily. Backend systems, deployment architectures, vendor decisions, codebase audits. Not native mobile apps or hardware.
Do I need to send my code in advance?
Repository access is helpful but not mandatory. If your code is private, share it with the email provided after enquiry, or walk through it live in the session.
Can my team join the session?
Up to 3 people from your team can join the 2-hour session. Beyond that, an Institutional Workshop is the right fit.
What if my problem is bigger than 2 hours?
Honest answer — for an ongoing engagement, you want Mentorship, not Architecture Review. We will tell you that on the WhatsApp scoping call rather than waste your money on a single session.
Do you work with non-Indian companies?
Yes. Sessions are remote, time zone is IST but flexible, payment is INR-denominated.
Decision gate
Decide from fit, not urgency.
These support paths use real founder time. The right answer is sometimes to keep using the public proof layer, sometimes to ask one focused question, and sometimes to choose the support surface.
Choose only if
This support changes the work.
Choose Architecture Review only when the support surface helps you produce the proof outcome: A 2-hour review, 5-page roadmap, prioritized risks, and honest what-to-skip recommendations.
Stay lower if
A lower path already solves it.
Beginners — this assumes you can articulate a real project / codebase / decision
Ask first
Fit is confirmed directly.
Send the page you read, the blocker or goal, and the outcome you expect. The next step can be reading, one question, or enrollment.
Direct fit-check
Message or call Divyanshu when this support would change the work.
Every support enquiry is intentionally human-confirmed: a short WhatsApp conversation matches the learner, founder time, and expected proof outcome before any payment step.