Everything I do fits one of three shapes, sized to how much architecture attention your team actually needs. Cloud and platform work, SaaS and product architecture, legacy modernization, and team leadership run through all of them.
Embedded technical leadership on a weekly cadence. Design reviews, standards, roadmap and hiring input - the judgment of a staff-level hire, one to two days a week.
A fixed-scope, independent assessment of a system - architecture, code health, operations, and scaling risk - delivered as a written report you can act on or hand to investors.
A recurring session and async access to a senior architect. For founders and engineering leads who need a sounding board, not a full engagement.
Cloud architecture, migrations, cost and reliability reviews - infrastructure that scales with the business instead of against it.
Multi-tenancy, auth and authorization, API design, and the data models that decide whether your product can grow.
Untangling systems that grew faster than their design - incremental replatforming without stopping delivery.
Design review culture, hiring input, and mentoring that levels up your senior engineers - so the architecture outlives the engagement.
Most engagements start with a conversation. It's easy to begin small - an advisory retainer or a review - and expand into embedded work once the fit is clear. If none of the shapes match your situation, say so on the call; the shapes serve the work, not the other way around.
Your context, your constraints, and an honest read on whether Talvigen is the right fit.