The receipts. Named runs of the eval suite, with their numbers.

Runs of the frozen PR review eval suite, published as measured: what was tested, what was found, what missed, and the configuration that produced each.

The runs

RunWhat was testedCorpusRecallFabricatedFrozen authzConfigurationDate
Run 1PR review, general scope, three passes per planted pull request57 planted pull requests: 27 flaw plants under the general class list, 12 frozen authorization plants, 18 benign look-alikes26 of 27 (96.3%)010 of 12The production PR review lane, reasoning effort low25 September 2026
Run 2PR review, general scope, three passes per planted pull request57 planted pull requests: 27 flaw plants under the general class list, 12 frozen authorization plants, 18 benign look-alikes25 of 27 (92.6%)011 of 12The production PR review lane, reasoning effort low25 September 2026
Run 3PR review, general scope, engine v2, the paid-plan lane, three passes per planted pull request53 planted pull requests: 24 multi-line flaw plants in real repository files, 3 unproven-sink plants (the wanted outcome is an unverified listing), 24 clean control pull requests including the adversarial set, 2 large-PR coverage plantsMedian 21 of 24 across 3 repeats (22, 21, 17); 60 of 72 plant runs published0 across 72 clean-control runsNot a separate slice of this corpusThe production PR review lane, reasoning effort low1 October 2026
Run 4PR review, general scope, engine v2 release build, the free-tier lane, three passes per planted pull request43 planted pull requests: 24 multi-line flaw plants in real repository files, 17 clean control pull requests including the adversarial set, 2 large-PR coverage plantsMedian 16 of 24 across 3 repeats (16, 15, 21); 52 of 72 plant runs published1 in the worst repeat (2 of 51 clean-control runs)Not a separate slice of this corpusThe production PR review lane, reasoning effort low1 October 2026

Each recall number is the result of that named run on that corpus. It is not a product accuracy rate, and results on your code depend on your code. New runs of the customer setup get appended to this table as they happen, worse results included.

Fabricated counts a finding published on a benign plant. On the founding runs of 25 September 2026, all 18 benign look-alikes stayed silent. The internal gate behind a configuration change sets a recall bar of 83.3% on the general corpus and a bar of 10 of 12 on the frozen authorization slice, with zero fabricated; a published finding that does not match a planted line fails a run too.

Download this table: JSON or CSV. Both files are generated from the same data as this page.

Method

  • The corpus is private and frozen: planted pull requests written for the eval suite, no customer data in it. A mechanical judge credits a finding only when it quotes the planted line in the file the pull request touches; no model judges the model.
  • A configuration is a lane: one model and one reasoning effort, pinned for every call in the run. Every run in this table ran on the production PR review lane, the same configuration that served PR review on the run's date, inside the production provider pin with zero data retention.
  • The runs are repeatable from the eval suite in the private repository. The whole-repo scan side keeps its own frozen evaluation record, failed configurations included, on the transparency page.

The scan-side record: the transparency report.

Honest limits

The corpus is small: single-flaw planted pull requests of a few thousand tokens each, so these numbers rank configurations against each other; they are not a forecast of results on your pull requests. The founding runs of 25 September 2026 are two runs of this configuration; the wider record shows run-to-run swings of up to four plants on other lanes, so read each number as that run's result. The thinnest class is path traversal: the founding runs found one of two traversal plants each, and the second is a consistent miss. The judge is strict by design: a finding that names the right bug but does not quote the planted line counts as a miss, and one plant in the corpus carried a second real bug that produced a true extra finding in a replication run; the record keeps both facts. Zero fabricated over 18 benign plants is the precision record of the founding runs; it says nothing about precision on unseen code. The runs of 1 October 2026 used the second engine and a new corpus: multi-line flaw plants written into real repository files, adversarial clean controls (authorization in an upstream wrapper, a check moved into a helper, row-level-security-backed reads, and pre-existing bugs staged beside a touched line), and unproven-sink plants whose wanted outcome is an unverified listing rather than a published finding; the engine listed all 3 unproven-sink plants in every repeat and published none. The release gate for this corpus sets a bar of 20 of 24 published on the free-tier lane. The free-tier run of 1 October published a median of 16 of 24, below the bar, and same-day runs on successive builds swung from 16 to 20; the paid-plan lane published a median of 21 of 24 with zero published false positives across 72 clean-control runs. Both rows stay in the table.

Scope

PR review looks for access control, business logic, SQL and command injection, XSS, SSRF, path traversal, unsafe deserialization, token and session flaws, and LLM-integration risks. Whole-repo scans read authorization, IDOR, and business-logic access control only, and stay access-only by design. These receipts cover PR review; the scan side keeps its own frozen record.

Read the even comparisonsSee pricing