---
title: "Security — Praxis"
route: "/solutions/security"
template: solution
intent: "Keep security review attached to each AI-assisted delivery change."
parent: "/solutions"
primaryCta: { label: "Talk to us about security", href: "/enterprise?interest=security#contact" }
description: "Security review can connect a bounded change to its stated constraint, configured checks and inspectable evidence."
schemaType: Service
hero:
  eyebrow: "Solution"
  headline: "Keep security review attached to the change in front of you."
  sub: "AI can increase review volume. Start with a specific security constraint, run the configured checks, and show the evidence and gaps a person needs to assess."
  primaryCta: { label: "Talk to us about security", href: "/enterprise?interest=security#contact" }
sections:
  - { id: pain, kind: pain, heading: "More change than review can cover" }
  - { id: why-periodic-audits-lag, kind: explanation, heading: "Why a checklist and a sign-off aren't enough" }
  - { id: praxis-mechanism, kind: explanation, heading: "What Praxis Security does" }
  - { id: security-flow, kind: flow, heading: "How it works" }
  - { id: proof, kind: proof, heading: "What's included" }
  - { id: next-step, kind: cta, heading: "Talk to us about a security review" }
---

## More change than review can cover

In regulated environments a security gap isn't just a bug; it's a compliance and trust problem, and the cost lands on the organisation, not the engineer. Review has to be rigorous enough to hold up to an external audit. AI-assisted development raises the volume of change that review has to cover — every merge is a new surface an auditor could ask about later — and the review team is the same size it was before.

## Why a checklist and a sign-off aren't enough

A checklist records that someone looked. It does not record what they checked, against which requirement, or what evidence they saw. A sign-off is a name and a date. When the auditor asks "why was this change safe?", neither answers. And spreading the load across more reviewers produces more names, not more evidence. What a regulated team needs is a change process where the security requirement, the decision, the check, and the acceptance are all written down, linked, and versioned — by construction, not by discipline.

## What Praxis Security does

For a selected change, record the applicable security requirement and review the relevant design and implementation evidence. Configured checks contribute findings; the record must say what ran, failed or was skipped. A private onboarding conversation can cover broader monitoring, but a local review is not a compliance certification or a comprehensive security guarantee.

## How it works

- **Scope it** — identify the security constraint and affected code, with a person confirming ambiguous policy intent.
- **Plan it** — select checks that fit this environment rather than assuming a scanner is universally enabled.
- **Run and record** — retain actual outputs, failures and skips alongside the implementation.
- **Review it** — Quality Harness can inspect the bounded result; approved application, Git publication and human merge stay distinct.

## What's included

- **Requirement-linked review** — examine the selected change against the security constraint it claims to satisfy.
- **Evidence with limits** — record configured checks and their actual results; missing coverage remains visible.
- **Private discussion** — plan any broader integration or repeated monitoring with the team.

## Talk to us about a security review

Book a walkthrough of Praxis Security for your environment.