Security standards for teams building with AI coding assistants
TLDR/BLUF
Standards you can adopt, fork, or hand to an auditor. Every one is written to be copied whole into your own repository and edited, which is why each ships as markdown and as a Word file. They cover what to require of a team writing code with an AI assistant, how deeply a human has to read what it produces, what to do about dependencies you did not write, and what a buyer will ask you to produce.
What it costs you. Adoption is per document and each says its own price. Nothing here is a product, a scanner, or a service, and nothing is sold. The expensive part is not reading these – it is that a control you claim has to be one you can show firing, and several of these documents exist to make that difference visible.
Not for you if you want a certification, a compliance attestation, or a maturity score. None is offered and none is implied: these set a bar to hold, not a badge to present. Also not for you if you want a tool recommendation, because no scanner, format or assessor is named anywhere in the set.
The honest limit, before you spend time here. Whether any of this binds your organization is decided by a clause number and by counsel, never by a web page. What these documents can do is tell you which questions are real and what a good answer looks like.
Start at which security standards actually apply to you, which routes on your situation rather than on the documents. If you already know what you are looking for, the standards index has one row each. If you have ten minutes and an executive to brief, the CISO summary is the whole argument in two pages.
Where each reader goes
| You are | Start at |
|---|---|
| Deciding whether any of this reaches you | Which security standards actually apply to you |
| Briefing an executive, or asking for funding | The CISO summary |
| Writing or forking your own standard | Secure development, the model, with stable rule identifiers |
| Deciding how much AI-written code a human reads | Human review of code |
| Setting expectations for AI-assisted work | AI-assisted development |
| Judging whether a body of code is any good | Code quality |
| Managing code you did not write | Dependency and artifact integrity |
| Working out which rules a pipeline can enforce | Automated compliance in CI |
| Selling software, and being asked for evidence | What to have ready when a buyer asks |
| Adopting any of it, in an order that works | How to adopt these |
What makes these different from a checklist
One claim runs through every document: a control that reports success is indistinguishable from a control that never ran, so a claim is worth what its receipt is worth and nothing more. That is why secure development carries permanent rule identifiers you can cite in your own deviations register, why every rule has an evidence column, and why automated compliance in CI turns on one question – does failing it actually stop the change.
The set also publishes what did not survive checking. Widely repeated figures about machine-written code are named in code quality as claims to stop repeating, next to the ones that held. A document that only published its wins would be asking for trust it had not earned.
Running an assessment, and the pipeline it runs in
Two method documents sit beside the standards rather than inside them. Running a large security-standard assessment with AI agents is what was learned scoring several hundred requirements with agent sessions, and it is candid that the obvious way to split that work is the wrong one. CI and standards for agent-written code covers getting parallel work through a pipeline without believing things that are not true.
Where these came from
They were written alongside claude-multisession, a toolkit for running several agent sessions against one repository, and that toolkit remains their worked demonstration: it applies the same claim to concurrency, where every control fires on purpose and prints what it examined. The documents outgrew it and now live here.
Everything is MIT licensed. Copy it, fork it, put your own name on it.