You pay for the people we scored. Everyone else is free.

That's what the Executive view is for. It's a written brief — a headline, a health grade, what's behind it, who needs support, and three to five things you could do about it — deliberately written without engineering jargon. It says "their changes often skip safety checks", not "low error-handling score". If a number appears, it's measured from the work, never invented by the AI.

No. Never. Analysis runs on Amazon Bedrock inside AWS, whose terms prohibit using your inputs to train models. Diffs are processed to produce your scores, stored encrypted for your own audit trail, and used for nothing else.

No — deliberately, and we would not trust any tool that claims to. Detection is guessing, and a number your engineers can dispute is a number they will ignore. Almost everyone directs an agent now. We grade the artifact that shipped on the same 12 dimensions we always have, and we hand the developer the prompt that would have produced a better one. We do not rank people on "AI skill."

Two ways. First, severity comes from reachability and blast radius — could an unauthenticated stranger hit this, and what would they get — rather than from pattern matching, so the critical list is short enough to actually work through. Second, findings have an owner, a deadline, an honest "defer with a reason" option, and a re-check anyone can run to prove the fix landed. It reads your code in context, so it weighs a payments bug like a payments bug. Protection is $100 per 25 repositories per month on every paid plan, and is available read-only during your trial.

The fastest way to make engineers hate measurement is to measure motion — commit counts, lines of code. We deliberately never rank on volume. Engineers get the same evidence leaders see, their own private growth view, and training built from their own code. The rubric is fixed and visible: the same bar for everyone, with receipts. Praise is public; comparison is private.

Repository contents, pull requests, and metadata on only the repositories you enable. We never push code or change branches. If you turn it on, we post a review comment on the pull request. Uninstalling the GitHub App severs access immediately.

Connecting takes minutes and the first analysis lands overnight. Want to see it before connecting anything? Load the sample team on signup and walk the whole product with realistic data in about two minutes.

Only a developer whose code we analyzed in that billing month. Everyone who just views dashboards — executives, managers, stakeholders — is free, and your invoice lists exactly which developers were counted. Each plan’s base price already includes a set number of developers (5 on Starter, 15 on Team, 40 on Scale); the per-developer price applies only beyond that, so a team that fits inside its plan pays one flat number.

All of them. The rubric measures engineering judgment — correctness, testing, error handling, design — which the AI evaluates in any language or framework, informed by each repository's own conventions.

Trivial changes are filtered before any AI runs, and every plan includes an allowance sized so typical teams never reach it. If you do, analysis pauses (cheap git metrics keep flowing) until your period renews — or, only if you explicitly opt in, continues at $0.05 per extra credit. You are structurally protected from surprise bills.

14 days, card required, nothing charged until it converts, cancel in one click. The trial analyzes up to 5 repositories and 10 developers and runs the full Team-plan pipeline on your last 14 days — architecture reviews, delivery alignment, team rollups, and a read-only view of Security Sentinel — so what you evaluate is what you’d buy. It converts to the plan you chose at signup, and you can switch plans any time from Billing.