SOC 2 · AI-assisted development
Point-in-time senior audit of Copilot, Cursor, and Claude Code output for teams facing Type II fieldwork, enterprise questionnaires, or change-management evidence requests. Written findings in 5–10 business days. Same engagement as our AI Code Audit, framed for the SOC 2 question.
Assessors and enterprise buyers have stopped asking whether you use GitHub Copilot. They assume you do. They ask who reviewed AI-assisted changes, at what seniority, on which paths, and what you wrote down. Maxiom’s SOC 2 AI code audit is the same productized, point-in-time AI Code Audit, scoped to the evidence those questionnaires actually want: change management, logical access on tenancy and auth, vendor/OSS posture, and a dated findings report. Named engineer. Read-only access. Client code stays in your environment. This is not a SOC 2 Type II certification, not an audit firm, and not a scanner PDF marketed as oversight. SaaS teams often arrive from software engineering for SaaS. If the folder on the table is copyleft rather than CC-series language, start with AI-generated code licensing review.
The problem
That sentence described autocomplete. It does not describe a year of Copilot and Cursor merges. Assessors want who, seniority, paths, and a dated artifact.
Tickets close. PRs approve. Nobody can show a findings record for AI-assisted auth, billing, or tenancy changes. Type II requests notice the gap.
Green CI is hygiene. It does not judge tenant isolation against your product, and it does not sign the customer security review.
What the SOC 2-framed audit covers
Every engagement is conducted by engineers with 10-plus years of production experience. Scope is agreed up front. We have shipped software since 2002, with $100M+ in contract value and 221+ clients. Clutch-reviewed. That is delivery history, not a Type II logo.
Who reviews AI-assisted diffs, at what seniority, what they write down, and whether that trail would survive fieldwork
Authorization and isolation gaps assistants copy from the nearest file, especially on new endpoints
Approved vs prohibited tools, where they run, and whether source left the environment
Declared packages plus generated snippets a lockfile scan cannot see
Whether the log, the retention story, and the code path agree
Severity-ranked report, live walkthrough, remediation order. Named engineer.
Free resource
A practical review list for teams shipping with Copilot, Cursor, and other AI coding tools. Covering security, architecture, compliance, and code quality.
The assessor asked how Copilot changes are reviewed. You have a policy PDF. You do not have a findings trail. You need the snapshot before they sample tickets.
Row 40 is AI coding tools. “Human in the loop” will not attach to the email. You need a dated report from someone who does not also ship the diffs.
Billing, tenancy, and SSO paths picked up Copilot velocity. Senior review did not. You need a bounded pass before the next SOC 2 window, not an open-ended retainer yet.
Kickoff
We map which assistants are in use, which repos matter for SOC 2, and whether the trigger is fieldwork, a customer questionnaire, or both.
You get: agreed evidence scope
Least-privilege repository access. Proprietary source is not processed through external AI.
You get: a bounded intake
Change management, access, tenancy, OSS, and logging on the agreed AI-assisted scope.
You get: findings, not a scanner dump
Written report, live walkthrough, and a clear split: what to fix before fieldwork vs what belongs on an oversight retainer.
You get: a packet you can show an assessor
A fixed-scope, point-in-time senior review of code produced or heavily assisted by Copilot, Cursor, Claude Code, or similar tools, written so a SOC 2 questionnaire, Type II request, or enterprise buyer can see who looked, what they found, and what to fix. It is the AI Code Audit engagement with SOC 2 evidence language.
No. We are not your auditor. We do not issue a Type II report. We produce engineering findings your assessor, GRC team, or customer can use as evidence of how AI-assisted code is reviewed. Certification remains with a licensed firm.
Same core engagement, deliverable, access model, and timeline. This page is the intent-led entry for teams searching SOC 2, change management, or Type II evidence specifically. The AI Code Audit page is the category landing. Both convert into the same senior audit process.
Compliance Engineering designs controls into the product (access, logging, retention) so the next assessment has code-level evidence. A SOC 2 AI code audit is a snapshot of what AI already wrote. Buy the snapshot when a date is on the calendar. Buy compliance engineering when findings need to become architecture.
It gives you a severity-ranked findings trail and a named engineer, which is what those questions are asking for. It does not replace your policies, your CI scanners, or your assessor. “Human in the loop” remains a process claim until you have artifacts.
No. Client code stays in client environments. Senior engineers inspect directly. We do not run proprietary source through external AI tools as part of the engagement.
After NDA and read-only access, initial findings are typically shared within five business days, with full report and debrief commonly inside 5–10 business days depending on repository size and how much SOC 2 mapping you want in the write-up.
Yes, as a pillar of the audit. If the only folder on the table is open source, use the licensing review landing. If the questionnaire mixes change management, access, and OSS, keep it on this page.
Start with the snapshot. Move to AI Code Oversight when you will keep merging assistant output after the date. The report goes stale. That is not a reason to skip the snapshot.
The inspection model is the same. The access model is not a generic SaaS review. Say PHI on the scoping call. Healthcare product work is Maxiom Labs (https://www.maxiomlabs.com/). HIPAA software development remains available on this site when the buy is a build, not a findings trail.
SOC 2 AI code audit
Response within 1 business day
