[frameworks]
HIPAA-aware review for code that can expose PHI.
Autometric brings safeguard context into the same code review engine already looking for insecure logging, weak auth flows, data-handling bugs, and risky performance shortcuts.
[framework evidence]
Review depth stays on. Framework evidence layers in.
SOC 2
CC6, CC7, CC8 review pack active
PCI DSS 4.0
Requirement 6 mapped to repository rules
FedRAMP
AU, CM, SI controls attached to findings
Why teams scope it
Repositories touching patient identity, records, audit history, or regulated integrations need stronger review traceability.
What gets attached
Findings can reflect HIPAA-relevant safeguard context without reducing the rest of the review to checklist mode.
What stays on
General bug, security, and performance review continues across the same repository.
[how enforcement shows up]
HIPAA changes the review context, not the reviewer.
- Surface PHI-adjacent data handling and logging risk earlier in the review flow.
- Preserve scoped evidence and immutable review history for regulated services.
- Pair framework context with broader code-quality feedback in one system.
[best-in-class review]
Core AI code review still stays on.
HIPAA context adds enforcement where needed, but Autometric still evaluates ordinary code-review risks such as null dereferences, unsafe retries, broken auth assumptions, and regression-prone refactors.
When a pull request links a bug or feature ticket, that task context can stay attached to the same review and evidence path.
[evidence]
Evidence teams can actually reuse.
- Evidence export for regulated service repositories.
- Clear scope boundaries per repository rather than one blanket policy.
- Trust and deployment documentation aligned with procurement review.
[rollout]
Typical rollout pattern.
- step 1
Start with services handling PHI or patient-facing workflows.
- step 2
Tune repository scope with security and legal stakeholders.
- step 3
Expand to surrounding services once the review posture is accepted internally.
[cta]