Free First Probe
Best when: you need fit and route clarity.
Delivers: route recommendation, visible gap note, Entry 0 option.
DetailsProbe services
Choose the smallest probe that answers your question.
Each probe is a focused project review built around a specific question: what the evidence supports today, what remains uncertain, and what the most sensible next move looks like.
Before a probe runs, FoldEngine narrows the scope to the product, feature, dependency, or decision that actually matters. That keeps a large repo from being treated like one undifferentiated system.
The result is more than a scan. You get a clear read on the current state, the gaps that still matter, and the next step worth taking.
Submit intake first. If the scope is accepted, FoldEngine sends the correct payment link before work begins. No checkout links are published here. Payment and commercial terms are handled manually for v1; Stripe checkout is not wired on this site.
Probes are read-only by default. After review, results are delivered directly, and the client portal shows project status rather than acting like a self-serve report vault.
What you receive
You receive a bounded decision report.
The report includes findings, evidence gaps, a decision summary, and the next recommended move. Scope and probe type determine the exact shape of the result.
- Bounded findings
- Evidence gaps
- Recommended next steps
- Decision summary
- Conditions that still need attention
- Next recommended move
Continuity is available after delivery: later reviews on the same project can build on the earlier result, so follow-up work compounds instead of disappearing into separate threads and inboxes.
See the sample report for how these pieces fit together.
How scoping works
We route the question before we run the scan.
Most tools start by scanning everything they can see. FoldEngine starts by narrowing the question, the evidence surface, and the decision that actually matters, so the result sounds like it was written for your project instead of for a category.
Find the real scope
We identify the product, feature, dependency, or decision that should anchor the review.
Choose the most honest route
We choose the smallest service that can answer the question honestly.
Record what the evidence supports
The result stays tied to what was actually inspected, without claims that outrun the evidence.
Turn it into a useful decision
You receive findings, open questions, and the next move worth taking.
Carry it forward in the ledger
The result can carry forward so later reviews begin with context instead of starting over.
Product chooser
Which product should I choose?
Pick the smallest probe that matches the decision. If the target surface is unclear, start with the Free First Probe or Custom / Quote so scope can be reviewed before any paid diagnostic.
Star Support
Best when: public GitHub popularity needs context.
Delivers: support signal report and boundary notes.
SampleStability-Signal
Best when: trust in a technical choice may be stale.
Delivers: support-reality finding and next stabilizing move.
SampleAI Code Stability
Best when: generated code looks done too early.
Delivers: false-closure report for a bounded slice.
SampleAI Stack Audit
Best when: code, config, dependencies, and deploy seams all matter.
Delivers: stack evidence map and support-layer gaps.
SampleDependency Watch
Best when: you want recurring ledger entries over time.
Delivers: quarterly deltas for the agreed watch list.
Sample
Custom / Quote
Best when: the scope is private, mixed, or non-standard.
Delivers: scoped proposal, boundaries, and next step.
DetailsDecision logic
How FoldEngine makes a decision
Probes use a consistent review method: shared checks that apply across most projects, plus project-specific checks that match the actual question being asked. Continuity then carries those results forward so later reviews can compare what held, what failed, and what changed over time.
Shared core invariants include evidence availability, reproducibility signals, dependency declarations, runtime/test proof, documentation sufficiency, scope boundaries, and claim-to-artifact traceability. Probe-specific invariants extend that core for AI-generated code, dependency trust, repo support, paid diagnostics, recurring watch work, and custom scopes.
A decision receipt is the consequence of those checks. Proceed, hold, or block reflects what the reviewed evidence supports, which invariants failed, and which invariants could not be evaluated.
An evidence gap is an unevaluated invariant, not a footnote.
AI Code Stability
Before the rewrite crisis
This probe does not ask whether AI-generated code "looks good." It asks whether the evidence supports building on it, repairing it, migrating it, or stopping. It checks for structure, traceability, runtime/test proof, generated-pattern drift, and seams that may break under change.
AI helps you move faster. FoldEngine helps you find out whether what you generated can safely carry change.
"I do not understand my own project"
Architecture traceability gap — can the system be explained from its own structure?
"The patterns were not mine"
Generated-pattern drift — are the AI-chosen patterns still coherent across the codebase?
"Could not trace the logic"
Weak claim-to-artifact traceability — are the joins between files, features, and intent traceable?
"Had to reread everything"
Low navigability — can you change one thing without reading the whole project again?
"Needed to delete most of it"
High stabilization debt — what repairs would make this cheaper to recover than to rewrite?
"Simpler after rewrite"
Simplification opportunity — sometimes the best next move is to consolidate rather than extend.
Before you delete three months of AI-generated code, run a Trial Probe.
Prices are in Canadian dollars (CA$).
Paid one-time probes include one Closure Check.
The investigative probe identifies the real scope of the issue, the evidence gaps that still matter, and the most sensible stabilizing move. After you apply that change — manually, with your team, or with AI-assisted development — you can request one included Closure Check to verify whether the original seam closed.
Additional same-scope Closure Checks are CA$50 each. If the question changes or a new surface is involved, we’ll quote a new probe instead.
| ▤Probe | Lifecycle moment | Buyer question | Evidence inspected | Report output | Price | Details |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Quick decisions | ||||||
| Free First Probe | Early fit / routing | Is this request a fit for a FoldEngine probe? | Public URL or high-level project description, stated decision, permissions and boundaries. | Fit assessment, route recommendation, visible evidence/gap note, next safe move. | Free | View details |
| Star Support Probe | Public repo credibility / popularity context | Does visible repository support/popularity line up with surrounding public evidence? | Public GitHub repo signals, visible project evidence, support/gap indicators. | One public repo popularity/support context report with boundary notes and next safe move. | CA$250 | View details |
| One-time diagnostics | ||||||
| Stability-Signal Probe | Before adopting or continuing a technical choice | Can we still trust/build on this choice? | Maintenance signals, documentation drift, support reality, migration pressure, public evidence. | One support-reality decision report with risk classification and next smallest stabilizing move. | CA$500 | View details |
| AI Code Stability Probe | After AI-generated code looks complete | Can we trust this AI-generated code enough to build on it? | Tests, wiring, config, dependencies, assumptions, deployment seams, visible repo evidence. | One false-closure decision report for a bounded AI-generated code slice. | CA$500 | View details |
| Paid Trial Diagnostic | When a repo/project needs broader next-step diagnosis | What does this repo/project need next? | Scoped repo/project evidence, buyer decision, visible risks, gaps, constraints. | One broader repo/project diagnostic around a scoped question. | CA$500 | View details |
| AI Stack Audit | When an AI-generated prototype or small repo needs support-layer review | Are the support layers real across this AI-generated prototype? | Generated architecture, dependency reality, test depth, config/deploy path, top support seams. | Broader review of AI-generated prototype/small repo support layers and stabilization backlog. | CA$1,000 | View details |
| Ongoing watch | ||||||
| Dependency Watch | After adoption, when trust must be re-checked over time | Are our trusted technical choices still safe to build on this quarter? | Agreed watch list, changed-since-last-review evidence, stale trust signals, migration pressure. | Quarterly bounded evidence report for the agreed watch list. | CA$1,500 / quarter | View details |
| Custom stabilization | ||||||
| Custom / Quote | Private, multi-repo, implementation, SDLC, or deeper stabilization need | What scoped work or quote is needed? | High-level private/mixed context, agreed public evidence, workflow constraints, desired outcome. | Scoped proposal, boundaries, quote, expected artifact type, next step. | From CA$1,500 | View details |
Accepted probes can produce or append to a private Stability Ledger when continuity matters. Recurring watch work adds entries over time rather than treating each review as a brand-new diagnostic.