AI code oversight — monthly retainer
Ongoing senior review of code written with Copilot, Cursor, and Claude Code — scoped to your release cadence. Named engineer. No automated scanners. Not a chatbot retainer.
Engineering leaders adopt AI coding tools to move faster — but velocity without oversight creates security, compliance, and architectural debt. Maxiom's AI code oversight is the recurring product: structured human review by senior engineers as your team continues to ship, mapped to HIPAA, SOC 2, or FedRAMP when those frameworks apply. This is Maxiom's high-margin AI-as-a-service — not a chatbot subscription and not junior hours wrapped in AI marketing. Most new logos start with a point-in-time AI Code Audit, then convert to this retainer. Healthcare and PHI-handling programs can pair oversight with Maxiom Labs.
The problem
AI tools produce syntactically correct, functionally plausible code that can still contain injection vulnerabilities, insecure deserialization patterns, and improperly scoped authentication logic.
AI tools optimize for the immediate task. They do not optimize for your system's existing architecture or the next 18 months of feature development.
HIPAA, SOC 2, FedRAMP: compliance requirements are context-dependent in ways AI tools cannot fully reason about.
What an AI code oversight engagement looks like
Every review cycle is conducted by engineers with 10-plus years of production experience. The scope covers security, architecture, compliance, dependencies, and test coverage quality — matched to how you actually merge AI-assisted code.
OWASP Top 10 plus AI-specific patterns including prompt injection in LLM-integrated code
Against your stated system design and roadmap
HIPAA/FHIR for healthcare, SOC 2 for SaaS, FedRAMP for federal
GPL contamination, unvetted OSS packages
Coverage quality, not just coverage percentage
Structured scoring for long-term team velocity
Free resource
A practical review list for teams shipping with Copilot, Cursor, and other AI coding tools — covering security, architecture, compliance, and code quality.
Your team adopted AI coding tools and delivery velocity increased. You are not sure whether your review quality kept pace with your review speed.
You are in healthcare, fintech, or federal contracting. A compliance review or customer security questionnaire has surfaced questions about AI-generated code in your stack.
You are approaching a fundraise, an enterprise sales cycle, or an acquisition. Someone is going to look at your code.
Kickoff
We map stack, AI tool usage, review volume, and the release cadence oversight has to match.
You get: a written cadence and scope
Intake is read-only. Cadence, repos, and review windows are confirmed in writing before the first cycle.
You get: access that InfoSec can live with
Senior engineers inspect AI-assisted diffs and agreed paths on your rhythm — not a quarterly slide deck.
You get: review quality that keeps up with merge volume
Written findings, a live walkthrough, and a prioritized fix list. Critical remediations can be a separate scope.
You get: evidence you can show on the next questionnaire
Senior pass on AI-assisted changes each sprint or iteration. Fits teams already shipping on a two-week rhythm who need review quality to keep up with merge volume.
A review cycle before each production release or enterprise cut. Fits teams with fewer, higher-stakes deploys — questionnaires, regulated cutovers, or customer-facing launches.
The retainer plus a scoped engineering bucket to fix critical and high findings. Use when you do not have spare senior capacity to close the issues the review surfaces.
Defined review volume and responsibilities, scoped to your release cadence, month-to-month with 30-day notice. A named senior engineer stands behind every cycle. This is the recurring product — not a chatbot subscription and not an open-ended staff-aug bench.
If you need a baseline before the retainer — diligence, a questionnaire, or an incident — begin with the 5–10 day AI Code Audit, then convert findings into this cadence. Agent access to internal systems is MCP Development, not oversight.
If you need a snapshot before a deadline, buy an AI Code Audit. If you already know AI-assisted merges will keep coming and you want senior review on a cadence, buy AI Code Oversight. If agents need access to internal systems, that is MCP Development. New relationships almost always start with the audit, then convert to this retainer.
No. Oversight is independent senior review of code your engineers write with AI tools. We do not staff a chatbot team, sell RAG wrappers, or process your source through third-party models. Agent infrastructure is MCP Development. Production healthcare AI is Maxiom Labs (https://www.maxiomlabs.com/).
AI code oversight is a monthly retainer for independent technical review of code produced or heavily assisted by GitHub Copilot, Cursor, Claude Code, and similar tools. Senior engineers evaluate security, architecture, compliance, dependencies, and test quality — not just syntax or lint results — on a cadence matched to how you release.
An AI code audit is a point-in-time, fixed-scope engagement with a written findings report — typically within 5–10 business days. AI code oversight is ongoing senior review as you continue shipping. Choose an audit when you need answers before a deadline; choose 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 continuously and need senior review quality to keep pace with delivery — especially under customer security questionnaires, compliance reviews, or production risk.
A named senior engineer, review volume scoped to your release rhythm, written findings with severity ranking, live debriefs, and prioritized remediation guidance. Client code stays in your environment. The retainer is month-to-month with 30-day notice. Remediation implementation, custom delivery, and MCP servers are scoped separately when you want hands on the fix.
No. Client code stays in client environments. Reviews use direct inspection by senior engineers — not automated scanners or third-party AI processing of proprietary source.
Engagements commonly cover GitHub Copilot, Cursor, Claude-assisted workflows, and similar AI coding assistants. Scope is based on how your team actually generates and merges code, not a single vendor list.
Yes. Reviews 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 programs can continue with Maxiom Labs at https://www.maxiomlabs.com/.
A 30-minute scoping conversation to set cadence, repository boundaries, and regulatory context. Teams that need a baseline first start with an AI Code Audit, then convert the findings into this retainer. NDA and read-only access precede any review.
Most teams request review after something goes wrong. A scoping conversation costs 30 minutes. Need a one-time snapshot first? Start with an AI Code Audit.
AI code oversight
Response within 1 business day
