Fundraising and acquisitions put your codebase under a microscope. Nothing in that report should be a surprise to you.
Founders preparing for a funding round or acquisition who want to find and fix codebase problems before technical due diligence does.
Reviewers look at code quality and structure, test coverage, security posture, dependency health, key-person risk, and increasingly how much of the codebase is AI-generated and how it was reviewed. They're estimating one thing: how expensive will this be to own?
Findings rarely kill a deal on their own. Surprises do. A known risk with a remediation plan reads as competence; the same risk discovered by the other side's reviewers reads as either concealment or ignorance — and both reprice the deal.
Qualyn continuously reads the evidence in your repo — tests, coverage, findings, risks, release history — and keeps an explainable, auditable picture of its health. Walk into due diligence already knowing the report, with the fixes underway.
Qualyn reads the evidence teams already discuss and turns it into a release call that can be inspected before production.
Code quality, architecture, test coverage, security posture, dependency and licence health, scalability, key-person risk, and the team's development process. For AI-assisted codebases, reviewers increasingly ask how generated code was reviewed and tested.
Build the evidence picture before they do: current test and coverage state, resolved or documented security findings, healthy dependencies, and a written risk register with owners. Fix what you can; document honestly what you cannot.
Occasionally — but undisclosed problems are the more common killer. Known technical debt with a credible plan is priced in; discovered technical debt triggers repricing, escrow demands, or walked deals.
No meaningful tests, unresolved security vulnerabilities, heavily outdated dependencies, licence contamination, a single developer holding all knowledge, and release history full of incidents and rollbacks.
Six months before you need it, minimum — coverage, findings, and process evidence cannot be backfilled in a week. The cheapest option is to keep the evidence continuously current so preparation is a non-event.
Not by itself. What hurts is AI-generated code without evidence of review and testing, because the acquirer has to price in re-verifying it. Documented review, tests, and findings around generated code neutralise the concern.
Connect GitHub and turn release evidence into a clear answer: safe to ship, why, and what would change the answer.