I wonder if, instead of just incremental code reviews, there would also be a way to get a 3rd party review our huge codebase and flag issues (architectural, real legibility -- not just "CC measures") to be dealt with. Then you could keep track of them and burn them down as part of "killing technical debt" goals.

Yes! I am a reviewer for PullRequest and since I've been doing reviews with them I've been involved in at least one major review where I was given the opportunity to review the entire codebase. From there I was asked to give comments, suggestions, design ideas, and general feedback on a number of different criteria.

I'm just a reviewer and can only comment on what I've experienced. But I can say that what you're asking has definitely been done.

I'd pay $$ just to have someone reviewing our Raman bowel of a codebase and documenting it.

> and documenting it

Sounds like you need two or three people dedicated to the task. Documentation is a whole profession by itself. Well, good documentation.

> Our reviewers are all highly qualified, many are maintainers of popular open source projects or work at top tech companies.

Isn’t that potentially a huge problem? What if your reviewers work for my company’s competitors? I don’t want them seeing our code base. Do you have any methods to ensure that doesn’t happen?

Conflict of interest is something we take seriously and have processes in place to ensure this doesn't occur. All reviewers aren't able to review or see the reviews from all customers, we have tools in place to facilitate the best matches for both compliance as well as quality and familiarity.

Are you saying your employees will never leave to work for your competitors? I have not worked with this company but most of them needs an employee to sign a strong NDA that protects IP. That must be sufficient in most cases to protect your IP.

I wanted to join as a reviewer, but you don't accept reviewers from outside the US. Is this something what you are working on and has a chance to change in the foreseeable future? I work for a public US tech company but I'm located in Europe.

For the past year, I've been working for a company where there are a lot of extreme novice mistakes in the codebase. Even though they reviewed their code, a novice developer reviewing another novice developer aren't going to catch things that are obvious to a developer with 5+ years experience.

IMO: Target shops where they just don't have the expertise on-hand to do thorough code reviews. Don't waste time trying to convince a team full of experts with deep domain knowledge that they need you. (They probably don't.)

We also have a "problem" where there are some components that are a different language than what most of us are experts in, so they end up being developed by a solo developer. When we need to jump in, as we learn the codebase, we also see novice mistakes that are very hard to fix, because we just don't have many years of experience in that language / platform.

Thus, IMO, on your website, list out situations where shops will clearly identify a need for your service. (Team full of novices, solo developers, team members quit.) Don't go trying to convince "everyone" that they need you.

Hi Tyler. Is there a reason why PullRequest Reviewers from Canada are also included as an allowed country? Because that country has good rule of law?