[product]
Framework enforcement, inside code review.
Turn on the frameworks in scope for a repository and Autometric adds named controls, evidence, and merge gates without turning off the broader review engine for bugs, security, performance, and style.
[in scope flags]
A repo becomes an audit-ready surface the moment you scope it.
Mark a repository in scope for any combination of frameworks and Autometric rewrites the review logic for that repo: rule packs activate, thresholds tighten, and merge behavior shifts to fail closed for findings that would breach an active control. The underlying reviewer still keeps looking for bugs, auth flaws, and risky code paths whether or not a framework rule fires.
[control mapping]
Every finding carries a control reference.
Developers see why the block exists in plain language. Auditors get the actual control identifier and the evidence trail without manual translation. Engineering still sees the same serious review engine rather than a policy-only tool.
[evidence]
Evidence, exportable.
Completed reviews produce exportable evidence bundles that fit into auditor workpapers, security tooling, and internal control reviews. The point is not “AI comments in a PR.” The point is an evidence chain your audit team can actually use, built on top of a reviewer your engineers can already trust.
SARIF export
Portable review evidence for downstream systems and control workpapers.
Repo-level scoping
Different repositories can carry different framework obligations without different tools.
Fail-closed review
In regulated environments, silent fail-open behavior is not a feature.
[frameworks]
Seven frameworks, natively supported.
CC7.2
SOC 2
Map review findings to trust-services-criteria controls without sacrificing general bug and security review quality.
6.2.4
PCI DSS 4.0
Catch risky payment-code changes with named PCI context while keeping the full review engine active.
164.312(b)
HIPAA
Bring technical-safeguard context into code review for systems that can expose PHI or patient workflows.
A.8.32
ISO 27001
Add ISO control awareness to review evidence without downgrading day-to-day engineering review quality.
Art. 25
GDPR
Use code review to reinforce privacy-by-design practices while still catching the broader engineering issues that create delivery risk.
SI-10
FedRAMP
Bring control-family enforcement to pull requests while preserving the review quality required for regulated federal workloads.
AU-6
NIST 800-53
Use control-family-aware code review without giving up broad engineering review for bugs, security, and reliability.
[rollout]
How teams actually roll it out.
-
step 1
Start with one in-scope repository and one framework such as SOC 2.
-
step 2
Expand the same repository to a second framework once the team trusts the evidence flow.
-
step 3
Roll the profile out to adjacent services that share risk, data, or control boundaries.
[cta]
Book a framework-enforcement demo.
We’ll connect a sample repository, enable the frameworks in scope, and show a real review where bugs, security issues, and control-aware findings appear in the same flow.