Nobody comes off the roadmap for this.
Ship secure software without spending sprint capacity to do it. Your existing process, your existing pipeline, nothing new for your developers to learn.
The capacity math stopped working.
Your output went up.
Code volume is growing roughly 50% as AI generation moves into the mainline. 86% of AI-generated code fails basic XSS tests, and high-risk findings are up 36% year over year. Your team is shipping more, faster, and the finding count scales right along with it.
Your capacity to fix it didn't.
Remediation capacity is headcount, and headcount doesn't scale with generated code. Every new finding competes for the same engineers who are supposed to be building the roadmap. You can't hire fast enough to close a gap that widens every sprint.
As long as remediation runs on your team's clock, it takes a bigger bite of the roadmap every quarter. It needs to run somewhere else.
Two cycles. Neither one waits.
Remediation moves out of your sprint and onto a track your security team runs. Your delivery cycle keeps its cadence, the security cycle keeps its own, and the only thing crossing between them is a pull request.
What still reaches your team, and why.
Security fixes what security can fix. What reaches your developers is the remainder: the findings that need someone who knows why this code was written this way. Those were always going to need you. Everything else stops arriving.
Handled without you
False positives, duplicates across scanners, and the many real vulnerabilities that have a known, validated fix. Your team never sees a ticket for any of it.
Arrives as an ordinary PR
Fixes that need a developer's eyes show up in the repo they already work in, code written and tests passing, reviewed the way they review everything else.
Needs your judgment
A business-logic call, an architectural tradeoff, a decision about a system nobody wants to touch. These are worth your engineers' attention, and now they're the only ones getting it.
Nothing new for your team to own.
Your developers don't onboard. There's no tool to install, no agent in the IDE, no training session, and no new dashboard for anyone on your team to check. If your team changed nothing at all, this still works.
Transparent to the workflow
Access is read-only. AppSecAI proposes a branch and opens a pull request. Your CI checks, your branch protection rules, and your reviewers decide what merges, exactly as they do today. Nothing sits between a green build and a deploy, and nothing new can block your pipeline.
Transparent in the diff
Every fix arrives with its reasoning: the vulnerability, the path an attacker would take, why this change closes it, and the validation it passed. A reviewer sees what changed and why without reconstructing it. That's what keeps reviewing a machine-written fix down to a short job.
The codebases nobody owns.
Every engineering org has them. The codebase whose team reorganized away. The internal tool someone vibe-coded in a weekend that three departments now depend on. The legacy application nobody will volunteer to touch.
Securing those means finding an owner first, and finding an owner means taking someone off something else. AppSecAI covers them without assigning anyone. It solves a staffing problem as much as a security one.
Run the proof yourself.
Published, not asserted
97% triage accuracy and 93% fix accuracy, measured on the OWASP Benchmark with thousands of examples you can clone and rerun. Those two numbers decide how much review each fix costs your team, so you shouldn't have to take a vendor's word for them.
Validated before anyone sees it
Before a fix reaches a pull request it passes a battery of automated checks: that it resolves the vulnerability, that the code still works, that it meets your quality and security standards, that it won't break the build, and more. Your reviewers aren't the first line of defense against a bad patch.
Frequently asked questions
What do my developers have to learn?
Nothing. There's no tool to install, no agent in the IDE, and no training. Work that reaches them arrives as a pull request in the repo they already use, reviewed with the process they already follow.
What access does AppSecAI need to our repositories?
Read-only. AppSecAI proposes a branch and opens a pull request. It can't merge. Your CI checks, branch protection rules, and reviewers decide what lands, unchanged from how they work today.
Does this gate or slow our pipeline?
No. Nothing sits between a green build and a deploy, and there's no new check that can fail and block a release. The remediation cycle runs beside your pipeline, never inside it.
How much review does each fix actually cost my team?
A normal pull request review. Each fix arrives with the vulnerability explained, the attack path shown, the change justified, and a battery of automated validation checks already passed. Reviewers are confirming a fix, not researching one from scratch.
What about our legacy codebases and internal tools with no owner?
They get covered without you assigning anyone to them. That includes legacy applications, codebases whose teams have moved on, and internally built tools that never had a developer behind them.
Do we have to change scanners or rip anything out?
No. Your existing scanners stay where they are. AppSecAI ingests findings from Anthropic, Black Duck, Checkmarx, Fortify, Gemini, OpenAI, Semgrep, Snyk, SonarQube and more, individually or all at once, plus anything that exports SARIF or JSON.
Keep the roadmap. Ship the fixes anyway.
Bring the security backlog your sprints keep deferring. We'll show you fixes for your own code, and exactly what your team would have to review.