AI Code Risk Is Spreading
Developers are generating code faster than security can review it.
Buyer fear
We are shipping AI-generated vulnerabilities and do not know where.
Primary service
AI Product Security Assessment
Supporting services
Best for
Why This Matters
The business and security pressure.
AI-generated code risk becomes shipping risk when review gates, guardrails, and evidence do not keep up. The useful output is a prioritized remediation backlog with traceable proof.
Review Surfaces
Systems and surfaces in scope.
Listed surfaces are common review targets, not partnership, certification, or endorsement claims. Marketplace readiness support does not replace official review.
Common Failure Modes
What usually breaks.
AI output is merged without review
Prompt-to-code paths are undocumented
Unsafe defaults are copied into shared code
Security findings never become backlog items
What We Do
The work mapped to the service path.
Find insecure AI-generated code patterns
Trace prompt-to-code paths and unsafe defaults
Review missing controls, remediation gaps, and review bottlenecks
Map findings to CWE / OWASP and buyer-safe evidence
Workbench Instruments
Products used to deliver or demonstrate the work.
Deliverables Produced
Artifacts buyers can inspect.
AI Code Risk Findings Register
CWE / OWASP LLM Mapping
Secure Coding Gap Report
Developer Remediation Pack
Buyer-Safe Evidence Summary
What Good Looks Like
Concrete outcomes.
Insecure AI-generated code patterns are identified
Review gaps are mapped to owners
Remediation work is queued and retestable
Buyer-facing evidence is safe to reuse
Related services
Related research
Caveat
Based on analyzed job-description signals and scoped engagement evidence, not proof of any individual company's internal security maturity.
Turn this brief into scoped work.
The CTA follows the primary service path so the next step is commercially clear.