How do we avoid drowning developers in false positives?

Start with a tiny, high-signal rule set (5–10 rules). Run as warn-only locally and block only the highest-confidence patterns in CI. Incorporate developer feedback, track false-positive rate, and tune weekly for the first month.

What about monorepos with dozens of services?

Scope checks by path and service ownership. Use CODEOWNERS and path-based configs so regulated domains get stricter gates. Run changed-only scans per directory and schedule full scans nightly.

We already have scanners. Do we need more tools?

Probably not. You need better wiring and tuning. Most wins come from pre-commit, changed-file CI, OPA for IaC, and signing artifacts. We often remove redundant scanners to reduce noise and cost.

How do we handle third-party/AI-generated code safely?

Treat it as untrusted: run full SCA/SAST on vendor/AI diffs, force golden libraries for crypto/logging, and require review from a security champion. Our teams use Semgrep rules that specifically catch common AI-generated insecure patterns.

Will this slow our releases?

Not if you scope it. Our target is <90 seconds median CI overhead on PRs, with heavier checks on high-risk paths only. Full scans run nightly or pre-release, not on every commit.

Security-compliance · Dec 12, 2025 · 9 minute read

From PDF Policy to Pull Request Guardrails: Secure Coding That Ships

Stop writing policy PDFs nobody reads. Wire your standards into editors, commits, and CI so developers get fast feedback and auditors get proof.

Back to all posts

From PDF Policy to Pull Request Guardrails: Secure Coding That Ships

Key takeaways

Implementation checklist