One person reads your code. On purpose.
I'm Mathias, a .NET consultant based in Belgium. For more than twenty years I've done one thing: build and repair server-side C# systems — REST APIs, data layers, the architecture underneath them. This service is the distilled version of that work. You send me a codebase and a question. I read it, and I tell you the truth about it.
Hidden faults are a visibility problem, not a failure
Every mature codebase carries problems its own team can't see. That isn't a knock on the people who built it — it's structural. You can't easily notice the shape of a thing you're standing inside. Decisions that were correct three years ago quietly stopped being correct. Workarounds hardened into load-bearing walls. Nobody made a mistake, exactly; the system simply drifted somewhere no single person had a clear view of.
An outside read fixes that. Not because I'm smarter than your team, but because I'm not standing where they're standing. I come in with fresh eyes, decades of pattern recognition, and no stake in how things got the way they are. There's no blame in what I do — only a clear picture of where you actually are.
Why it's just me
Most review and audit work gets spread across a rotating cast of consultants, each seeing a slice. That's efficient for the firm and lossy for you. Context leaks between hand-offs, judgment gets averaged out, and no single mind ever holds the whole system at once.
I work alone on purpose. The person who reads your code is the person who understands it, ranks the findings, and stands behind them. You get one consistent standard of judgment applied end to end — not a committee's compromise, and not a junior's first week dressed up in a senior's invoice. The solo model is the quality guarantee, not a limitation of it.
Finding the problem is the product
There's a real difference between knowing a system is unhealthy and knowing precisely what's wrong, why it matters, and what to do first. The second one is the hard part, and it's the part I sell.
That's why diagnosis and repair are separate here. A review that surfaces a dozen issues isn't a to-do list — it's a set of decisions only you can make about priority, risk, and sequence. I give you findings ranked and explained so you can decide what's worth fixing. If you then want the fix, I write it as clean, self-contained code with instructions your team (or your AI tools) can apply directly. What I never do is blur the line between "here's what's wrong" and "here's the bill to make it go away."
How I work
Everything is remote and asynchronous. You send the full codebase and a recorded question — a Loom, a voice memo, however you think out loud. I work in my own time and send back a recorded walkthrough and a written summary you can forward to anyone. No mandatory calls, no meetings that could have been a document, no coordinating calendars across time zones.
Honest scoring runs through all of it. If your code is in good shape, I'll say so plainly. If it isn't, I won't soften it into uselessness. A review that flatters you is worth nothing, and one that manufactures alarm to sell remediation is worse. You get the real reading in both directions.
The background
Two decades of ASP.NET Core, OData, EF Core, and SQL Server. Domain-driven design and CQRS applied to systems that had to hold up under real load. Multitenancy, microservice boundaries that actually hold, the outbox pattern, test suites that earn their keep. Azure DevOps and container-based delivery. The unglamorous, decisive parts of a .NET system — the ones that quietly determine whether the whole thing ages well or falls over.
If that sounds like the read your codebase needs, start here.