Provider
Sample Output
Architecture Diagram Reviewer Sample Report
This is a synthetic example using a made-up system. It exists so buyers can inspect the report shape before they sign in and upload a real diagram.
Synthetic exampleNo customer dataFormat preview only
What this preview is for
Use this page to understand the review format. Real uploads still require a verified business-email account, and real remediation scope is never promised from a sample alone.
Overall Score
74/100
Confidence
medium
Recommended Next Step
remediation-sprint
Flow Narrative
Users enter through CloudFront and an ALB, app services process requests in private subnets, and data persists to RDS with background workers consuming queue events.
Top Deductions
PILLAR-SECURITY
-12 pointsWhy: The request path is visible, but concrete identity, secret storage, and encryption controls are not stated.
Evidence seen: “Users enter through CloudFront and an ALB ... data persists to RDS ...”
How to fix: Label the identity boundary for each tier, name the secret store, and mark encryption controls for in-transit and at-rest paths.
Official references: AWS Well-Architected Security Pillar
Estimated fix-effort driver: $237
REL-RTO-RPO-MISSING
-8 pointsWhy: Stateful services are shown, but recovery targets are not explicit in the visible evidence.
Evidence seen: “... data persists to RDS with background workers consuming queue events.”
How to fix: Add the target RTO/RPO for the primary datastore and the queue-backed recovery behavior expected after failure.
Official references: AWS Well-Architected Reliability Definitions
Estimated fix-effort driver: $255
MSFT-COMPONENT-LABEL-COVERAGE
-6 pointsWhy: The narrative names the major services but does not explain each component’s role or boundary.
Evidence seen: “CloudFront and an ALB, app services ... RDS with background workers consuming queue events.”
How to fix: Expand the paragraph so each major component has one clear purpose statement and the request/data flow across boundaries is explicit.
Official references: Architecture guidance
Estimated fix-effort driver: $38
How ZoKorp handles the next step
The free report points out the likely issues and recommends the next paid step.
The diagnostic call stays fixed and lightweight. Larger delivery work is only estimated when the evidence is clear enough and the scope is actually safe for a solo operator to commit to.
Regulated or complex environments move toward manual scoping rather than an auto-approved implementation estimate.
Run your own review
The sample page is only a preview. Use the real tool for a verified, account-linked review delivered to your business inbox.