For Security & Compliance

Policy enforcement, automated

Security and Trust scoring on every component, every version. Findings by severity with remediation. Complete audit trail for compliance evidence. Governance you don't have to chase.

What you get

Governance that proves itself

Dedicated security scoring on every component. Every version.

Security isn't a periodic audit — it's a score that updates with every version push. Vulnerability scanning, dependency checks, secrets detection — evaluated automatically against your policy conditions with pass/fail results.

Track Security score trends across your workspace. Identify which components are declining. Catch regressions before they ship, not after an incident.

OverviewQuality dashboard
Overall Health
8.7
Hygiene8.4No change
Quality8.2No change
Security9.1Stable
Trust8.5Stable
Velocity9Stable
Key Insights2
Score improved 1.2 points on auth-service
Hygiene trending up across 3 components
Actionable Findings3
Major
2
Minor
1
Score Trend
90d30d7d
Score DistributionSecTruQuaHygVel
Default PolicyCategory weights and conditions
Category Weights
Security 30%Trust 25%Quality 20%Hygiene 15%Velocity 10%
Trust Conditions
Human oversight requirements
Critical
Require human review for AI code
Critical
AI contribution tracking
Major
Minimum review time threshold
Major

AI governance as a compliance concern, not just a developer concern.

45% of AI-generated code fails security tests. The Trust category scores AI governance alongside Security — human oversight compliance, AI contribution tracking, review thoroughness.

For compliance purposes, Trust gives you measurable, auditable evidence that AI-generated code is being governed. Not a self-assessment. Not a policy document that nobody reads. A score that's evaluated on every version push, with individual condition results in the audit trail.

Critical, Major, Minor, Info — prioritized and actionable.

The Findings page aggregates across all components, filterable by severity, category, and source. See all Critical findings in one view. Filter to Security category only. Break down by source — External Tools, AI Analysis, Policy Evaluation — to understand where findings originate.

Each finding includes remediation guidance, affected components, and the specific policy condition that triggered it. No guessing about priority. No manually correlating across three different security tools.

FindingsAcross all components
23Open
3Critical
8Major
12Minor
By Category
Security
9
Trust
6
Quality
5
Hygiene
3
ActivityRecent analysis runs
Trust AnalysisPassed
2 min ago
AI contribution tracking
Human oversight requirements
Review time threshold
Code owner review required
Hygiene AnalysisPassed
15 min ago
Security ScanWarning
1 hr ago
Policy EvaluationPassed
2 hrs ago

Every analysis. Timestamped. Exportable.

Activity is your compliance evidence. Every Trust Analysis, Hygiene Analysis, and Policy Evaluation is logged with timestamp, component, version, and individual check results.

When an auditor asks "how do you ensure AI-generated code is reviewed?" — you show them Activity filtered to Trust Analysis. When they ask "how do you track security posture?" — you show them the Security score trend over the past 90 days. When they ask "who approved this release?" — you show them the Approvals log.

This isn't governance theater. It's continuous, automated evidence of governance in practice.

Components don't ship until policy says they're ready.

Quality gates at each pipeline stage enforce your security and trust policies automatically. A component with a Critical security finding doesn't progress to production — not because someone remembered to check, but because the gate evaluated the policy and returned "blocked."

Override when necessary — with an audit trail that records who overrode, when, and at what score. Governance with an escape hatch, not a black hole.

Stages & GatesRelease pipeline
Development
Passed
auth-service
8.7
dashboard-ui
7.2
user-api
9.1
Staging
In Progress
auth-service
8.7
dashboard-ui
7.2
user-api
9.1
Production
Pending
auth-service
dashboard-ui
user-api
Quality gates: min score 7.02/3 stages passed
A day in the life

Quarterly audit prep

You open the Activity page, filter to the past 90 days, and export. Every Trust Analysis, every Security evaluation, every gate check — timestamped and traceable. The auditor asks about AI code governance. You show them the Trust score trend (6.2 → 8.7 over six months) and the policy conditions that drive it.

Incident response

A vulnerability is disclosed in a common dependency. You open Findings, filter to Security + Critical severity. Three components are affected. Each finding includes the specific CVE, which package is vulnerable, and the upgrade path. The developers already have the findings in their component dashboards.

Policy update

New regulatory requirements for AI code governance. You add two conditions to the Trust category: minimum review time for AI-generated PRs and mandatory second reviewer for components with >40% AI contribution. The conditions are evaluated on the next version push across all components. No rollout meeting required.

Governance that proves itself

Security and Trust scoring. Findings by severity. Complete audit trail. Policy enforcement on every version.