Your PMs ship code too. Make sure it's secure.

Yes — and that's the point. A February 2026 analysis of the r/vibecoding community (153K members) found 63% of active vibe coders aren't developers: PMs, designers, founders, marketers, ops. Brian Armstrong said about 40% of Coinbase's daily code is AI-generated and that non-technical teams are shipping production code. The threat surface used to be "your engineers' commits." Now it's "anyone with a Cursor seat." Reactive tools (SAST queues, PR scanners) react after the fact — by then the AI-generated insecure code is already merged. VibeReview makes every prompt threat-informed before the code is even written, regardless of who's prompting.

We threat-model your repo first. We read it for entry points, trust boundaries, where user input lands, where secrets live, and the moves an AI coding agent is most likely to mis-handle. The code profile — languages, frameworks, drivers, CI — is built against that threat model: stack facts in service of the threats they introduce. Guardrails are then generated as direct responses to each threat, mapped onto the OWASP Top 10 and Cisco AI Security Taxonomy. Nothing in the rule set is generic. Every rule traces back to a real threat your repo has.

SAST is reactive: scan after the fact, return a triage queue of findings. VibeReview is proactive: we threat-model the repo first, generate guardrails for those specific threats, then feed the rules to the IDE while the code is being written. The threats often never make it into the PR. When a PR does land, we comment only on the diff lines that crossed a rule — not the whole file. Run SAST for periodic audits; run VibeReview for the prompt-to-PR loop.

Copilot, Cursor, and Codex catch what their model already knows — common bugs, popular patterns. They don't know your repo's threat model: which inputs are trusted, where the security boundary is, what data each endpoint touches. VibeReview builds the threat model first, generates rules from it, then serves them to the IDE via MCP on every prompt. Same IDE, no extra agent, rules tied to your specific threats — not a generic catalog.

Different layer. SCA flags known CVEs in your package manifest. VibeReview flags hazards in the code your team — or your AI — just wrote, against a threat model of your repo: SQL string interpolation on a user-input path, secret logging, missing webhook signature checks, tool-output trust in MCP clients. Run both.

OWASP is a catalog of categories. A threat model is the list of categories that actually apply to your repo and how they show up in your stack. VibeReview builds the threat model first — entry points, trust boundaries, AI failure modes — then maps it onto OWASP and the Cisco AI Security Taxonomy. The result is a set of rules that name a real threat in your code, not a generic checkbox. Each rule is editable, versioned, and toggleable.

MCP is the only way to put a threat-informed rule in front of the model on every prompt. Extensions react after the suggestion lands; MCP shapes it before. Claude Code, Cursor, and Codex speak MCP natively. We still ship a VS Code extension for Copilot — since Copilot doesn't speak MCP yet — but everywhere else the threat-tied rules ride the protocol the IDE already supports.

No. VibeReview catches security regressions at write-time, inside the IDE, against a threat model of your repo — so they rarely reach the PR. When something does land, we comment only on the diff lines that crossed a guardrail, with the rule name and a one-line mitigation. Your humans focus on architecture, naming, and intent. Diff-aware, not 40-comment storms.