AI code audit — the first paid engagement
Fixed-scope senior review for teams facing a fundraise, security questionnaire, compliance deadline, or production incident. Written findings in 5–10 business days. Named engineer. No scanners marketed as oversight.
AI coding tools accelerate delivery — and leave behind security gaps, architectural shortcuts, and compliance exposure that automated scanners miss. Maxiom's AI code audit is a productized, point-in-time engagement: senior engineers inspect a defined repository scope, deliver a severity-ranked findings report, and walk you through remediation priorities. It is the right first purchase for VP Engineering, CISO, and Head of Compliance buyers rolling out Copilot, Cursor, or Claude Code — not a chatbot retainer and not an open-ended custom-software scoping exercise. Healthcare and PHI-handling codebases can map findings to HIPAA/FHIR; the dedicated HealthTech practice is Maxiom Labs. Need a self-serve pass before you open a repo? Engineering leads can run the AI Code Risk Scorecard — a scored snapshot, not a source upload. Need ongoing review after the snapshot? Move to AI Code Oversight.
The problem
A fundraise, enterprise security review, or compliance questionnaire is coming. You need a clear snapshot of AI-assisted risk — not a multi-month oversight program.
A production incident, failed questionnaire, or near-miss traced back to unreviewed AI output. Leadership wants a structured audit of what else is in the codebase.
Copilot and Cursor accelerated merges. Review capacity did not. You need a senior engineer to inspect a defined scope and tell you what actually matters.
What the audit covers
Every AI code audit is conducted by engineers with 10-plus years of production experience. Scope is agreed up front so you get a complete, actionable report — not an open-ended review.
OWASP Top 10 plus AI-specific patterns including prompt injection in LLM-integrated code
Against your stated system design and near-term roadmap
HIPAA/FHIR for healthcare, SOC 2 for SaaS, FedRAMP for federal
GPL contamination, unvetted OSS packages, supply-chain risk
Coverage quality and critical-path gaps — not vanity percentages
Structured scoring for long-term team velocity and inheritance risk
Free resource
A practical review list for teams shipping with Copilot, Cursor, and other AI coding tools — covering security, architecture, compliance, and code quality.
Investors, acquirers, or enterprise buyers are about to look at your code. You need a severity-ranked audit before they do.
A customer security review asks how AI-generated code is reviewed. You need documented findings — not a vague process claim.
Something broke in production. Leadership wants an independent audit of AI-assisted areas before the next release.
Kickoff
We map stack, AI tool usage, regulatory context, repository boundaries, and the decision this audit needs to inform.
You get: agreed scope and timeline
No one inspects code until the NDA is signed. Access is least-privilege and stays in your environment.
You get: a bounded intake, not a fishing expedition
Senior engineers inspect the agreed scope and surface severity-ranked findings — not a generic scanner dump.
You get: a working findings list you can act on
You receive a written report, a live walkthrough of critical issues, and a prioritized remediation path.
You get: a report you can show a buyer or board
One primary application or service. Typical first engagement for a Copilot or Cursor rollout. Written findings and debrief within 5–10 business days after read-only access.
Several services, shared libraries, or a monorepo with multiple product surfaces. Intake defines which paths are in scope so the report stays complete instead of thinning out.
HIPAA/FHIR, SOC 2, or FedRAMP mapped into the findings — not a generic security pass. Healthcare and PHI-handling codebases can continue with Maxiom Labs after the snapshot.
A fixed-scope, point-in-time product: NDA, read-only access, senior inspection, severity-ranked written findings, live debrief, and a named engineer. Timeline is 5–10 business days after access. This is not a retainer, not scanner output, and not a custom software project.
Most teams move to AI Code Oversight (monthly review as you keep shipping), then remediation or delivery if critical findings need hands on the codebase. Agent access to CRM, EHR, or ERP is a separate MCP engagement — healthcare via Maxiom Labs.
If your team is shipping with Copilot, Cursor, or Claude Code and you need a snapshot before a questionnaire, fundraise, audit, or incident review, start with this AI Code Audit. Choose AI Code Oversight when you want a monthly retainer as merges continue. Choose MCP Development when agents need governed access to CRM, EHR, or ERP. Vibe coding governance is for prompt-built products approaching launch or fundraise — not the cold-start SKU for an established engineering team.
No. An AI code audit is independent senior review of code your team already wrote with AI tools. We do not sell chatbot retainers, RAG wrappers, or “we’ll be your AI team” hours. If you need agents connected to internal systems, that is MCP Development. If you need production healthcare AI, start with Maxiom Labs (https://www.maxiomlabs.com/).
An AI code audit is a fixed-scope, point-in-time review of code produced or heavily assisted by AI tools such as GitHub Copilot and Cursor. Senior engineers evaluate security, architecture, compliance, dependencies, and test quality, then deliver a written findings report with a live debrief — typically within 5–10 business days after read-only access.
An AI code audit is a one-shot, timeboxed product with a defined deliverable. AI code oversight is the monthly retainer: recurring senior review as you continue shipping with AI tools. Start with an audit when you need answers now; move to oversight when you want continuous judgment.
VP Engineering, CISO, and Head of Compliance buyers in healthcare, fintech, federal contracting, and enterprise SaaS who use AI coding tools and face a near-term forcing function: customer security questionnaires, compliance reviews, fundraising due diligence, acquisition diligence, or a production incident tied to unreviewed AI output.
Included: NDA, read-only repository access, senior inspection of an agreed scope, a severity-ranked written findings report, a live debrief, and prioritized remediation guidance from a named engineer. Not included: an ongoing retainer, automated scanner output marketed as review, third-party AI processing of your source, or a custom software build. Remediation, oversight, and MCP work are separate follow-on engagements.
No. Client code stays in client environments. Audits use direct inspection by senior engineers — not automated scanners or third-party AI processing of proprietary source.
Yes. Audits can include compliance gap analysis mapped to your framework — HIPAA/FHIR for healthcare, SOC 2 for SaaS, and FedRAMP/NIST alignment for federal environments. Healthcare and PHI-handling programs can continue with Maxiom Labs at https://www.maxiomlabs.com/.
NDA first, then read-only repository access by default. Least-privilege permissions are scoped to the engagement; build access is only added if you engage remediation afterward.
A 30-minute scoping conversation, then written scope and timeline. Standard audits share initial findings within five business days after access, with full report and debrief typically within 5–10 business days depending on repository size, stack complexity, and regulatory scope.
A scoping conversation takes 30 minutes. Most audits deliver findings within 5–10 business days after access. This is a written audit — not a chatbot retainer.
Related services & resources
AI code audit
Response within 1 business day
