97% of software teams now use AI coding assistants. Fewer than 1 in 3 govern how. The governed third ships faster and safer — the rest are accumulating risk at AI speed.
CI failures get re-run until they go green.
AI attribution lives in PR comments — if anywhere.
Any PR can edit your CI config, including AI-generated ones.
Nobody has re-checked test coverage since AI tools arrived.
Your AI acceptable-use policy exists in heads, not writing.
PRs got bigger and review time didn't.
Two or more true? Your team is operating at higher AI autonomy than its validation quality has earned — the gap where incidents live. That gap is exactly what the assessment measures.
Delivered in 5 business days from a structured intake — no discovery call, no scoping meeting.
Your CI/CD configs, workflow files, and a structured questionnaire, analyzed against validation coverage, review-gate integrity, autonomy readiness, and guardrail gaps. Every finding follows a fixed contract — observation, organizational risk, steps to validate it yourself, remediation, and references to recognized authority — plus a verified-in-place section documenting the controls you already have right. No finding asks for your trust.
A finding without references is opinion — we don't ship opinionAn autonomy-laddering plan for your team specifically: which work AI agents should own now, what objective validation must exist before you extend that further, and the review-gate policy that keeps velocity without the incidents.
Protected-path rules, agent-permission boundaries, and CI validation gates, ready to adapt directly into your repos. Implementation stays yours — you get the map and the tools, your team keeps control.
One real finding from the sample report, in full — this is the format every finding in your report follows.
No protected paths exist. .github/workflows/, CI config, and deployment
files are editable by any PR — including AI-generated ones. No CODEOWNERS files present.
The validator is not independent of the validated. A single careless or compromised PR can weaken the checks that gate it — your tests are only as trustworthy as the least-reviewed PR that could touch them.
.github/ and infra paths.CODEOWNERS on workflow and infra paths, owned by platform leads; branch protection requiring code-owner review on those paths.
OWASP Top 10 CI/CD Security Risks — CICD-SEC-4: Poisoned Pipeline Execution · SLSA v1.0 — build integrity · NIST SP 800-204D
Every finding in your report — all of them, not a sample — is structured exactly this way.
Findings and recommendations are assessed against leading industry frameworks — cited per finding, so your team can go to the source.
Fixed price, standard terms, no custom paperwork.
15-minute structured questionnaire. Repo access optional, never required.
Configs assessed against the governance rubric — no meeting needed.
Report, playbook, and templates in your inbox within 5 business days.
This assessment is executed by an AI agent pipeline with structured validation gates, adversarial review, and expert human sign-off before release.
That's not incidental — it's the same architecture the playbook teaches you to build. The delivery mechanism is the demonstration. Full methodology is documented in the sample report. Analysis is confined to the materials you provide, and nothing is retained beyond delivery.
Who it's for: engineering leaders at 10–100-engineer software companies where AI coding tools arrived faster than the policy for them.
If your AI-generated code is flagged by hand in PR comments — or not flagged at all — this is for you.
No. The questionnaire tier requires only the CI/workflow configs you paste or upload. Read-only access deepens the findings but is entirely optional.
No. Async by design — purchase, intake, delivery, and follow-up questions all run without a meeting. Questions are answered by email within one business day.
Standard terms at checkout. We don't execute custom NDAs at this price point — the questionnaire input tier exists specifically so you never have to share anything sensitive to get value from the assessment.
If it contains no finding you consider actionable, say so within 7 days for a full refund.
$950 — less than a single consultant day, for a complete governance readout your team can verify finding-by-finding. 5 business days. No calls.