AI SDLC Is Missing
Normal AppSec does not cover prompts, RAG, agents, evals, model behavior, or AI release gates.
Buyer fear
Our normal security process does not tell teams what to build, test, approve, or prove for AI.
Primary service
AI Governance & Security Program Build
Supporting services
Best for
Why This Matters
The business and security pressure.
AI-specific controls fail when there is no explicit SDLC, no release gate, and no evidence standard.
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 work is treated like standard AppSec
Release gates exist only in docs
Exceptions have no expiry or owner
Evidence capture is optional
What We Do
The work mapped to the service path.
Define AI security requirements and abuse cases
Set release gates, eval criteria, and control ownership
Map exceptions, evidence rules, and backlog workflows
Translate policy into an AI SDLC operating model
Workbench Instruments
Products used to deliver or demonstrate the work.
Deliverables Produced
Artifacts buyers can inspect.
AI SDLC Control Map
AI Security Requirements Pack
Release Gate Checklist
Control Ownership Matrix
Framework Crosswalk
What Good Looks Like
Concrete outcomes.
Requirements are explicit
Release gates are enforceable
Exceptions are time-bound
Evidence is part of the workflow
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.