Your MVP works and customers are using it. Revenue is coming in, there's real traction. But under the surface, things are getting complicated. Deployments feel risky, bug fixes take longer than they should, and technical debt is slowing everything down.
By Daniele Barbaro, Tech Lead & Software Engineer. Last reviewed .
This is a common pattern for successful MVPs, and it is a good problem to have. It means your product survived long enough to accumulate complexity. The challenge now is addressing that complexity without stopping the business.
Teams under pressure tend to respond in predictable ways when their codebase starts struggling.
None of these approaches address the actual problem: the architecture and code quality need attention in a way that doesn't stop the business from operating.
The codebase needs to be stabilized incrementally. Not rewritten, not patched, but systematically improved while the product continues to function and evolve.
This means identifying which parts of the system are causing the most friction and addressing those first. It means establishing patterns that make future development faster rather than slower. It means building test coverage in the areas that matter most, so changes can be made with confidence.
The goal isn't perfection. It's getting the codebase to a state where it's no longer fighting against you.
I'm Daniele Barbaro, freelance since 2012, and I have spent much of that time on codebases that had grown faster than their architecture could support. Laravel, Symfony, PHP systems of all kinds: I've seen the patterns that cause problems and the approaches that actually fix them.
When I work with a team on stabilization, I typically start with an assessment: understanding where the pain points are, which areas of the code are most critical, and what's causing the slowdowns. This isn't an audit that produces a report and nothing else. It's the starting point for actual improvement work.
From there, I prioritize based on impact. Some issues feel urgent but aren't actually blocking anything. Others seem minor but are the root cause of multiple symptoms. Figuring out which is which takes both technical understanding and practical judgment.
The work itself is hands-on. I write code alongside your team, refactor problematic areas, establish better patterns, and help build the test coverage that makes everything else possible. This isn't consulting in the sense of giving advice and walking away. It's embedded engineering work.
Throughout the engagement, I transfer knowledge to your team. The goal is for them to be able to maintain and continue improving the codebase after I'm done.
What this kind of work costs is explained on the rates page.
This work makes sense for teams in a specific situation.
You have a product that's working commercially: customers, revenue, or strong enough traction that the business case is clear. The codebase was built under time pressure, probably by a smaller team than you have now, and it's starting to show.
Your team is capable but overwhelmed. They're not making mistakes because they lack skill. They're struggling because the system they inherited doesn't support the pace of development you need now.
You're not ready to throw everything out and start over, both because the cost is too high and because the current system actually works. You need someone who can help you improve what you have without stopping the business.
MVP rescue is stabilizing a product that grew faster than its architecture. The product works and customers are paying for it, but deployments feel risky and bug fixes take longer than they should. The work improves the codebase systematically while the product keeps running, instead of rewriting it.
Rewrites take longer than planned, introduce new bugs, and freeze feature development while you maintain two systems at once. The existing code also encodes years of edge cases nobody wrote down. Incremental stabilization keeps the business operating and delivers improvement continuously rather than at the end.
With an assessment: which areas cause the most friction, which parts of the code are most critical, and what is actually causing the slowdowns. That assessment is the starting point for the work, not a report that ends there. Priority then follows impact rather than how urgent something feels.
Usually not. Adding people to a codebase that resists change tends to make things worse before it gets better, because every new developer needs months to learn which parts to avoid. The constraint is the system, not headcount.
Yes. The work is hands-on and embedded: code written alongside your developers rather than in isolation, with knowledge transfer built into the engagement. The goal is a team that can maintain and keep improving the codebase once the engagement ends.
If your MVP's codebase is becoming a bottleneck, the first step is usually a conversation about what's happening and what might help.
I work on a daily consulting basis for shorter engagements, or through monthly collaboration for sustained improvement work. The right approach depends on where you are and what you need.
In TurinToolbox Coworking (opens in a new tab)
via Agostino da Montefeltro 2
Torino, TO 10134
The door is always open for a chat over coffee.