Secure Code & Advanced Review
Automated security code analysis, advanced code review workflows, and secure coding standards enforcement.
Milestone: Acceleration
intermediate
CFR
LT
Job to be done: When only one engineer understands critical code and vulnerabilities surface late, I want secure coding standards with pairing and SAST automation, so I can prevent silos and catch issues pre-merge.
For engineers
Integrate SAST scanning in CI, set up enforced coverage thresholds for critical paths, and establish a pair programming rotation schedule to distribute knowledge and catch security issues early through code review.
What you’ll implement
These are the roadmap epic features, organized as a starter backlog.
1
Secure Coding Training Enforcement2
Advanced SAST Integration3
Dependency Security Policy4
Secrets Rotation Enforcement5
Supply Chain VerificationExecution guide
Practical guidance aligned to the Execution Kit Definition of Done.
Outcome
Teams ship secure code through pair programming, secure coding standards, and coverage-enforced gates.
Before to After Transformation
× BEFOREKnowledge silos with security as afterthought
Solo development, no security scanning, inconsistent coverage
# Before state:
- Development: Solo work (knowledge silos)
- Security: Manual code review by security team (bottleneck)
- Coverage: 45% (no enforcement)
- Vulnerabilities: Found in production or audits
# Typical issue:
1. Engineer writes code solo
2. PR opened (minimal review)
3. Merge without security scan
4. Deploy to production
5. Security vulnerability discovered (pen test or audit)
6. Emergency hotfix required
# Metrics:
- Truck factor: 1-2 (critical knowledge silos)
- Production vulnerabilities: 3-5 per quarter
- Change failure rate: 15% AFTERCollaborative, security-first development
Pairing spreads knowledge, SAST catches issues early, coverage enforced
# After state:
- Development: Pairing on complex/security-critical features
- Security: SAST in CI (automated, fast feedback)
- Coverage: 78% (enforced thresholds)
- Vulnerabilities: Caught pre-merge (shift-left)
# Typical workflow:
1. Complex feature identified to pair assigned
2. Code written collaboratively (knowledge shared)
3. PR opened with secure coding checklist
4. CI: SAST scan ✓ Coverage check ✓
5. Merge and deploy (confidence)
# Metrics:
- Truck factor: 4-5 (knowledge distributed)
- Production vulnerabilities: 0 per quarter
- Change failure rate: 5%Symptoms
Knowledge silos (only one person understands critical code)
Security vulnerabilities discovered late (in production or audit)
Test coverage is inconsistent or declining
Code reviews are superficial (rubber-stamping)
Prerequisites
A code review process in place (PR-based workflow)
A test framework with coverage tracking (Jest, pytest, etc.)
At least one security-conscious engineer or security champion
Implementation steps
Week 1
- Define secure coding standard (OWASP Top 10, language-specific guidelines)
- Integrate SAST tool in CI (Semgrep, CodeQL, or SonarQube)
- Set initial coverage thresholds (e.g., 70% branch coverage, increase to 80%+)
- Add secure coding checklist to PR template
Week 2
- Pilot pair programming for complex or security-critical features (2-3 pairs)
- Run secure coding workshop (OWASP Top 10, input validation, auth/authz)
- Enforce coverage gates in CI (fail if coverage drops below threshold)
- Add critical path coverage tracking (ensure key flows are tested)
Week 3
- Establish pairing rotation schedule (avoid permanent pairs, spread knowledge)
- Review SAST findings and create remediation plan (prioritize HIGH/CRITICAL)
- Measure knowledge distribution (code ownership heatmap, truck factor)
- Run retrospective on collaboration effectiveness (pairing vs solo, security awareness)
Definition of Done
- Secure coding standard documented and linked in PR template
- SAST tool integrated in CI with HIGH/CRITICAL findings blocking merge
- Coverage thresholds enforced (70%+ branch coverage)
- Pairing guidelines established with rotation schedule
- Secure coding checklist used in PR reviews
Metrics
Leading Indicators
- SAST scan pass rate (target: 100% no HIGH/CRITICAL)
- Code coverage trend (target: 75%+ branch)
- Pairing hours per week (target: 20-30% of dev time)
- Knowledge distribution (Gini coefficient < 0.7)
- Secure coding checklist completion rate
Lagging Indicators
- Lead time for changes (DORA)
- Change failure rate (DORA)
- Security vulnerabilities found in production (target: 0)
- Truck factor (# people who can leave before knowledge loss)
- Code review cycle time (p50)
Failure modes
Pairing becomes permanent (same people always pair to silos persist)
SAST findings ignored or suppressed without remediation
Coverage thresholds lowered instead of improving tests
Secure coding checklist becomes a checkbox (no actual review)
Pairing is mandated but no time budget allocated (burnout)
Ownership
Engineering Teams
- Practice secure coding and pair programming
- Fix SAST findings promptly (SLA: 7 days for HIGH, 30 days for MEDIUM)
- Maintain or improve test coverage with every PR
Security Champion / Security Team
- Define and update secure coding standards
- Review SAST findings and prioritize remediation
- Run secure coding training (quarterly)
Engineering Leadership
- Protect time for pairing (budget 20-30% of capacity)
- Incentivize knowledge sharing and quality over speed
- Track and address knowledge silos (truck factor < 3)
What good looks like (by org scale)
Small Teams
- Secure coding checklist in PR template
- SAST tool integrated (Semgrep or CodeQL)
- Coverage threshold (70%+)
- Ad-hoc pairing for complex features
Medium Orgs
- OWASP Top 10 training completed by all engineers
- SAST findings tracked with remediation SLAs
- Coverage thresholds per module (critical paths 90%+)
- Weekly pairing rotation schedule
- Knowledge distribution dashboard
Enterprise
- Security champions program (1 per team)
- Continuous secure coding training (gamified CTFs)
- Advanced SAST with custom rules (organization-specific patterns)
- Mob programming for architecture changes
- Automated truck factor alerting (< 3 triggers intervention)
References
Resources
Templates and related materials for this kit.
Templates
Copy/paste artifacts that support this kit.
Compliance Evidence Checklist
A structured template for collecting audit evidence in regulated DevOps environments (SOX, HIPAA, PCI-DSS).
Secure SDLC Checklist (Lightweight)
A simple, repeatable checklist for security-by-default in planning, coding, and release.
Threat Modeling Template
A lightweight threat modeling template using STRIDE methodology for security-conscious teams.
Related capabilities
Capabilities tracked under this epic in the roadmap.
- Secure Coding Training Enforcement>= 90% of engineers complete secure coding training annually with certification required for sensitive code changes.
- Advanced SAST Integration100% of PRs scanned with SAST (Semgrep, SonarQube) blocking >= MEDIUM issues, custom rules for org-specific patterns.
- Dependency Security Policy>= 95% of dependency updates auto-approved if CVE-free and passing tests, CRITICAL CVEs fixed within 48hrs.
- Secrets Rotation Enforcement>= 90% of secrets (API keys, tokens) auto-rotated every 90 days with expiration monitoring and alerts.
- Supply Chain Verification>= 80% of dependencies verified using SLSA provenance, signature verification, or checksum validation.
Related kits
Other kits in the same milestone or with similar DORA impact.