Fixed-fee engineering governance review

AI is writing more of your code. Do you know what it copied?

Codestodian reviews recent pull requests for open-source licence, provenance, and copyleft risk so engineering leaders can catch issues before they become production, customer, or investor due-diligence problems.

Fixed-fee review for up to 5 repositories or 50 recent PRs. Built for SaaS teams using Copilot, Cursor, Claude, ChatGPT, and coding agents.

codestodian · audit previewRequires review

payments-api · PR #2107

Possible match to copyleft-licensed implementation

Licence signalGPL-family · possible match
ProvenanceAI-assisted, source unclear
Review ownershipNo human approval recorded
Flagged for engineering review. Evidence pack attached: files, lines, licence signal, confidence notes.

AI-assisted coding has changed the risk profile of every pull request.

Developers are shipping faster with AI tools — and producing code without the same level of source awareness they had when every line was typed by hand. Risky snippets, copied patterns, generated dependencies, missing attribution, or copyleft-licensed code can slip through review unnoticed.

That is especially painful for proprietary SaaS companies: enterprise sales, funding rounds, acquisitions, and security or compliance reviews all surface questions about where your code came from.

The issue is not whether AI is good or bad. The issue is whether your team has governance around what gets merged.

Licence risk

AGPL, GPL, LGPL, SSPL, BUSL, unknown or missing licence signals can create review headaches for proprietary products.

Provenance risk

AI-generated or heavily assisted code can make it harder to explain where an implementation came from.

Audit risk

When a customer, investor, or acquirer asks about AI coding controls, “we trust developers to notice” is not a strong answer.

The offer

The £499 AI Code Risk Audit

A fixed-scope review of recent pull requests, designed to show where AI-assisted development may be creating licence, provenance, or open-source governance risk.

You receive a practical evidence pack your engineering team can act on.

This is an engineering risk review, not legal advice.

Fixed scope. No surprises.

  • Up to 5 repositories
  • Up to 50 recent pull requests
  • Review of dependency and licence signals
  • Review of suspicious copied-code/provenance patterns where practical
  • Review of risky files and generated code indicators
  • Written findings report
  • Recommended engineering controls
  • Optional follow-up call

What Codestodian looks for

Potential AGPL/GPL/copyleft exposure
Risky or policy-violating open-source dependencies
Unknown or missing licence signals
Copied-code/provenance concerns
Generated code without clear review ownership
PRs that should have had additional approval
Missing attribution or licence notices
Patterns that may create customer due-diligence questions

Findings are prioritised by practical risk, not dumped as a noisy scanner report.

Why now

AI code needs governance before it needs bureaucracy.

Most teams do not need a heavyweight legal platform on day one. They need a lightweight way to understand whether AI-assisted coding is introducing risk into the merge process.

  • No need to ban AI tools.
  • No need to slow every PR down.
  • Start by understanding the risk in recent merged work.
  • Turn findings into simple rules: warn, block, approve, rewrite, document.

Built for teams moving fast with AI

A good fit if you are

  • B2B SaaS companies
  • 10–200 engineers
  • Teams using Copilot, Cursor, Claude, ChatGPT, or coding agents
  • Companies selling to enterprise customers
  • Teams approaching funding, acquisition, SOC 2, ISO, or security review
  • CTOs/founders without mature AppSec/legal tooling

Not for

  • Hobby projects
  • Companies that do not use AI coding tools
  • Teams looking for formal legal advice
  • Enterprises that already have mature SCA/compliance platforms and legal review workflows

Illustrative example

What a finding looks like

A mock example of the kind of finding the audit surfaces. Real findings are specific to your repositories and always framed as items requiring human review — never automated certainty.

Potential copyleft/provenance risk

High — requires review

Repository

billing-service

Pull request

#1842 — Add invoice retry scheduler

Finding

This PR introduces a scheduler implementation with similarity to public open-source patterns associated with a restrictive licence family.

Risk

High — requires engineering review before relying on this implementation.

Evidence included

Affected filesAffected linesSuspected source patternLicence signalConfidence notesRecommended actionReviewer decision

Recommended action

Rewrite, replace with permissive alternative, or escalate for legal review.

Example shown for illustration only. Findings describe possible matches and risk signals that help your team review — a finding is not proof of infringement, and no finding is not a legal guarantee.

What you receive

Executive summary for CTO/founder

Repo-by-repo findings

PR-level risk notes

Dependency/licence concerns

Recommended policy rules

Suggested PR review checklist

Evidence pack for internal review

Optional 30-minute walkthrough

Simple fixed-fee test

AI Code Risk Audit

£499one-off

  • Up to 5 repositories
  • Up to 50 recent PRs
  • Written findings report
  • Prioritised risk list
  • Recommended controls
  • Optional 30-minute follow-up
Book an audit

Additional repositories or PR volume can be scoped separately.

Frequently asked questions

Is this legal advice?

No. Codestodian provides an engineering risk review and evidence pack. It helps your team identify issues that may require engineering, security, or legal review.

Can you guarantee there is no licence risk?

No. No practical scanner or audit can guarantee the absence of all risk, and no finding is not a legal guarantee. The goal is to identify visible issues, high-risk patterns, and gaps in your current process.

Do we need to give you access to our code?

The audit requires access to the agreed repositories or exported PR data. Access can be read-only and time-limited, and is scoped to the repositories you agree upfront.

Is this only about AGPL?

No. AGPL is one high-risk example. The audit also considers GPL, LGPL, SSPL, BUSL, unknown licences, missing attribution, dependency risk, and provenance concerns.

Is this for AI-generated code only?

No. The risk matters regardless of whether code was written by a human or AI. The audit is especially useful for teams using AI tools because provenance can become harder to reason about.

What happens after the audit?

You receive findings and recommended controls. If there is enough demand, Codestodian will turn the audit workflow into continuous PR-level monitoring.

Find out whether AI-assisted code is creating hidden risk in your repos.

Tell us about your team and repositories. We'll confirm scope, agree access, and get your evidence pack back to you — fixed fee, no subscription.

  • £499 one-off — up to 5 repositories or 50 recent PRs
  • Read-only, time-limited access
  • Written findings, prioritised risks, recommended controls

Prefer to ask a question first? Email [email protected]

AI coding tools you use
Do you want the £499 audit?

Engineering risk review, not legal advice. We'll confirm scope before any payment.