Code Audits and Reviews

When developers review each other’s code, they will typically work together to check it for any obvious issues that may cause problems in future, discuss best practices and whether there is a better way to achieve what they have done, and generally ensure the code is robust and of a high standard. Developer-to-developer-style code reviews like this, however, are often more technical and granular than what you as a client are really interested in when you are unsure whether you have received a high quality product.

Instead, I initially take a more high level look at the code, not to judge whether every aspect is technically perfect, but to make sure that on the whole, you have got what you paid for.

When it comes to auditing and reviewing a project you have commissioned, I will check for the following 3 criteria:

• Does the codebase meet the standards you would expect for the price paid
• Does the codebase look robust and stable
• Does the codebase look like it will be maintainable by another developer

I consider several factors to reach my conclusions to the above criteria, including reviewing the general structure of the code and how well it follows commonly followed conventions, that if not followed, may mean the code is less stable and will be difficult to maintain, which may mean you will encounter bugs or it will be difficult to carry out ongoing work.

It is usually possible to determine whether a codebase passes or fails the above criteria fairly quickly; code that is fundamentally badly written is easy to spot. I will let you know my initial assessment in advance, and will then take one of two approaches with my report.

If the codebase passes the 3 criteria, I will compile a report with my suggestions for improvements, which can be fed back to the developer to be considered for implementation. In this eventuality, the price of the report will be reduced to £300 as there will be less to report on compared to a failure report. This report will essentially act as a second pair of eyes, similar to a standard code review between two developers.

If, however, the codebase unfortunately fails any of the 3 criteria, I will compile a more in-depth report with detailed information of every problem I come across, including referencing the code in question, providing some example code I would have written instead, as well as explaining what is wrong with the code and why I believe it will cause a problem. This report can then either be submitted to your developer for implementation, or I can discuss possible next steps with you if the problems are more severe.

To ensure impartiality and fairness with any review I provide you with, I will never include a quote to implement any improvements or pitch to carry out any remedial work myself, unless you explicitly ask me to do so. My aim with this service is to give you peace of mind that you have received a quality product and help you get things back on track if things have gone wrong, not to try and win any follow up work.