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.
What I saw
Recognized components extracted from your narrative + diagram
Edge / ingress
CloudFrontApplication Load Balancer (ALB)
Data
RDS
Messaging / async
background workers
Networking
private subnets
Reviewer's note
1 critical issue needs to be handled before anything else. Start with: The request path is visible, but concrete identity, secret storage, and encryption controls are not stated. Everything else below is sequenced behind that.
If this were my workload: I'd handle the security critical this week, then walk through the remaining items in the Advisory Review to confirm sequencing before committing remediation hours.
— Zohaib Khawaja · AWS Certified Solutions Architect, Professional · Houston, TX
Overall Score
74/100
Confidence
medium
Recommended Next Step
remediation-sprint
Where the score lands by pillar
Security
1 finding · -12 pts
88/100
Reliability
1 finding · -8 pts
92/100
Diagram clarity
1 finding · -6 pts
94/100
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
CRITICAL
-12 pointsPILLAR-SECURITY
Why: 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
Cost of fixing vs not: If this were a real production environment: a $0 (or near-$0) fix vs. a six-figure incident cost. The math nearly always favors fixing it before the auditor or attacker notices.
Where I've caught this pattern: HIPAA-compliant AI IVR: 94-minute hold time down to 22 minutes — 77% hold-time reduction
HIGH
-8 pointsREL-RTO-RPO-MISSING
Why: 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
Cost of fixing vs not: If this were a real production environment: a $0 (or near-$0) fix vs. a six-figure incident cost. The math nearly always favors fixing it before the auditor or attacker notices.
Where I've caught this pattern: Cloud architecture for strategic partner deals: $60M+ closed, $200M+ influenced — $60M+ closed · $200M+ influenced
MEDIUM
-6 pointsMSFT-COMPONENT-LABEL-COVERAGE
Why: 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
Cost of fixing vs not: If this were a real production environment: a $0 (or near-$0) fix vs. a six-figure incident cost. The math nearly always favors fixing it before the auditor or attacker notices.
Quick wins to ship this week
If you only do 3 things this week — biggest impact-per-hour wins from this review
1. PILLAR-SECURITY
~1 hr–4 hrs · saves 12 pts
Why: The request path is visible, but concrete identity, secret storage, and encryption controls are not stated.
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.
2. REL-RTO-RPO-MISSING
~1 hr–4 hrs · saves 8 pts
Why: Stateful services are shown, but recovery targets are not explicit in the visible evidence.
How to fix: Add the target RTO/RPO for the primary datastore and the queue-backed recovery behavior expected after failure.
3. MSFT-COMPONENT-LABEL-COVERAGE
~1 hr–4 hrs · saves 6 pts
Why: The narrative names the major services but does not explain each component’s role or boundary.
How to fix: Expand the paragraph so each major component has one clear purpose statement and the request/data flow across boundaries is explicit.
Optional Recommendations
1. MSFT-LAYERING-OPTIONAL
Why: The current view is readable, but a layered variant would help when the live diagram grows.
How to fix: Consider separate edge, application, and data views for larger follow-on diagrams.
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. The current default remediation rate is $225/hr — your real quote shows the hour breakdown alongside the total so the number is never arbitrary.
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.