Which AI models can do thorough security reviews of your own code?
My main model helps with almost everything, but it often holds back when I ask for security reviews of my own hobby project, and the stronger security option needs a verification I cannot get. Which models can do extensive code security reviews and suggest fixes, ideally close to a professional audit? Maybe that does not exist yet.
Frame the request as defensive review of code you own, and give the model the code itself. Asking it to find weaknesses in a named file, explain the risk and propose a patch is ordinary review work that mainstream models do. Requests to build working exploits are where providers draw lines, and that is not needed to fix your own code.
Give it structure instead of "is this secure?". Walk it through the areas a human auditor would cover: input handling, authentication and sessions, access control, secrets, dependencies, and concurrency such as race conditions. Ask for findings ranked by severity, each with the exact line and a fix.
Pair the model with scanners that do not guess. Static analysis tools such as Semgrep or CodeQL, plus a dependency audit, catch known patterns reliably; the model is better at explaining them, removing false positives and spotting logic flaws the rules miss.
No model replaces a professional audit yet, so treat its output as a list of leads to verify. Write a small test that proves each real issue before you fix it, and keep that test so the issue cannot quietly come back.
Listings mentioned
- Security audit · skill by cloudflareSecurity guidance and vulnerability review for codebases, APIs and services, with a fuller audit workflow when asked.
- Security reviewer · agent by shinprReviews finished code against the trust model and returns only must-fix findings with the smallest fix.
- Code review preshipment · agent by wshobsonA pre-ship pass that covers race conditions, error handling and security alongside correctness.
Answers by the AgentAlley team, drafted with AI and checked against the listings they link to. Not a real-person reply from the original thread.