How do I ensure my code review workflow with a static analysis assistant is compliant?

To make a code review workflow with a static analysis assistant “compliant,” you want to treat it like any other software-control process: define what it may do, what it may not do, and how humans verify its output.

Here’s a practical compliance checklist:

1) Define the assistant’s role clearly

• Use it for suggestions, not final approval.
• Require a human reviewer to make the final decision.
• Document that the assistant is decision-support, not a source of authority.

2) Limit data exposure

• Only send the minimum code/context needed.
• Avoid sending:
  • secrets
  • customer data
  • credentials
  • regulated personal data
• If possible, redact sensitive identifiers before analysis.

3) Establish policy and scope

Create written rules for:

• which repositories can be analyzed
• what types of code are allowed to leave your environment
• what kinds of findings require escalation
• which teams can use the assistant

4) Validate outputs before acting

• Treat all findings as untrusted until reviewed.
• Confirm critical issues with:
  • the code itself
  • tests
  • security checks
  • domain experts if needed
• Avoid auto-merging based solely on assistant output.

5) Keep auditability

Record:

• who submitted the code
• what was analyzed
• which assistant/model was used
• timestamps
• findings and human decisions
• exceptions and overrides

This helps with internal audits and regulatory review.

6) Review vendor and tool compliance

Check whether the assistant/tool meets your requirements for:

• data retention
• model training usage
• encryption
• access controls
• logging
• residency requirements
• contractual terms and DPAs if applicable

7) Protect against hallucinations and bias

• Use the assistant to surface candidates, not prove correctness.
• Require independent checks for:
  • security vulnerabilities
  • license issues
  • policy violations
  • compliance claims

8) Integrate with secure SDLC controls

Use it alongside:

• code review policies
• CI tests
• SAST/DAST
• dependency scanning
• secrets detection
• change-management approvals

9) Train users

Make sure reviewers know:

• the assistant can be wrong
• what data must not be shared
• how to escalate sensitive findings
• how to document decisions

10) Periodically test and re-certify the workflow

Run periodic checks for:

• false positives/negatives
• access control drift
• retention violations
• policy compliance
• audit completeness

If you want, I can turn this into:

1. a one-page compliance policy,
2. a review checklist, or
3. a workflow diagram for your team.