[frameworks]
ISO 27001 review that engineering teams can actually use.
Autometric keeps AI code review useful for developers while making ISO control context visible where it matters to internal assurance, surveillance audits, and regulated change processes.
[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
ISO programs need evidence that engineering controls are enforced in the actual delivery flow.
What gets attached
Findings can connect code-review behavior to the control family relevant to the system under audit.
What stays on
Specialist review for bugs, security, performance, and style remains active alongside the control pack.
[how enforcement shows up]
ISO 27001 changes the review context, not the reviewer.
- Bring control-family context into the review where developers are already working.
- Generate evidence that internal assurance teams can reuse.
- Keep repository scope explicit instead of hiding it in policy docs alone.
[best-in-class review]
Core AI code review still stays on.
ISO framing never replaces core review quality. Autometric still evaluates engineering risk like auth regressions, brittle error paths, unsafe configuration handling, and costly code churn.
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 suited for surveillance audits and internal control reviews.
- Repository-level scope and review history preserved together.
- One platform for modern Git estates and legacy SCM pockets.
[rollout]
Typical rollout pattern.
- step 1
Pilot on services already inside an active ISO control conversation.
- step 2
Align review thresholds with the teams owning audit evidence.
- step 3
Extend to neighboring systems once evidence expectations are stable.
[cta]