A diagnostic-first engineering process with explicit scope, delivery controls, acceptance criteria, and a documented handover.
Each engagement moves through five controlled stages. The depth of each stage is adjusted to the agreed scope, risk, and delivery model.
We audit the relevant system, establish the baseline, and record constraints before recommending implementation work.
We document scope, assumptions, exclusions, risks, technical decisions, milestones, and acceptance criteria at the level the engagement needs.
Work proceeds through version control and an agreed staging or test environment, with material decisions and blockers recorded.
We test against the agreed baseline and acceptance criteria, then prepare the release checklist and rollback route before an approved production change.
We provide the documentation and handover included in scope. Administrator training and post-launch support are added when they are explicitly agreed.
These records make the work reviewable. The exact set and level of detail are agreed for the engagement; they are not a generic paperwork bundle.
The relevant architecture, code, integrations, performance, and operational constraints are reviewed.
The initial technical state and the checks that matter to the assignment are recorded.
Responsibilities, dependencies, assumptions, exclusions, and approval boundaries are made explicit.
Known technical risks, dependencies, blockers, and proposed responses remain visible.
Material choices and their trade-offs are recorded so the implementation can be understood later.
Risky work is prepared and tested outside production in an environment agreed for the project.
Delivery is divided into reviewable increments appropriate to the scope.
The agreed technical and business-critical flows are checked before acceptance or release approval.
Dependencies, checks, access, responsibilities, and approval points are confirmed before release.
The practical route back is agreed before a production change where rollback planning is relevant.
When weekly reporting is agreed, the update covers progress, decisions, risks, blockers, and the next review point.
The delivered system, relevant decisions, and operating instructions are documented within scope.
Training is included when agreed and is limited to the workflows and responsibilities covered by the project.
Code, documentation, access context, open risks, and next steps are transferred as agreed.
Any support window, responsibilities, and response expectations after launch are defined in the engagement terms.
The operating rhythm should match the problem. Scope, schedule, allocation, response expectations, and commercial terms are confirmed for the specific engagement.
Use a fixed scope when the technical outcome, deliverables, assumptions, exclusions, and acceptance criteria can be bounded after discovery.
Best for a defined build, integration, modernization, or assessment with a clear completion boundary.
Explore all services →Use retained capacity for a continuing queue of related engineering work, managed through a prioritized backlog and an agreed allocation and review cadence.
Best when priorities need to move without redefining a separate project for every related task.
Review our services →Use a rescue engagement when an inherited or business-critical WordPress system needs diagnosis, stabilization, prioritized remediation, and controlled verification.
Best when the root cause is unclear, releases feel unsafe, or accumulated technical debt blocks normal work.
See WordPress Rescue →Use a white-label or named partnership when the agency keeps the client and commercial lead while DevX takes responsibility for the agreed technical scope.
Best for technical discovery, systems integration, specialist delivery, or additional engineering capacity inside an agency-led engagement.
See the agency model →For performance work, budgets and Core Web Vitals are treated as engineering inputs. Other engagements use the baseline and acceptance criteria relevant to their objective.
Material assumptions, trade-offs, risks, and decisions stay visible instead of becoming undocumented black boxes.
We recommend the smallest credible intervention and say when a build or added complexity is not justified.
Usually a combination of unoptimized images, render-blocking CSS and JavaScript, too many or poorly built plugins, slow database queries, and missing caching or CDN. WordPress Rescue & Performance starts with an audit so we isolate the real causes before anything is changed.
Often, yes. If the foundation is sound, we stabilize and optimize what you have through WordPress Rescue & Performance. We only recommend a rebuild when the stack itself is the root cause — and we explain why before you spend anything.
Yes. WordPress Integrations covers CRMs, analytics, consent, and external APIs, with validation and monitoring so data flows reliably instead of silently failing.
Yes — WooCommerce Development connects orders, customers, stock, invoicing, and reporting to the systems you already run. For e-Factura and invoicing specifically, we confirm the exact scope and providers with you before building.
Share what is broken or what you are scaling. We will review the technical context and outline a practical first step without presuming the engagement model.
Request an engineering review