We keep seeing the same bottleneck in diligence and audit-readiness work:
teams can't agree on what output is "decision-ready" vs just another scanner report.
In our experience, three things matter most:
- deterministic reruns (same input, same output),
- traceable claims (path/hash/line),
- explicit unknowns instead of hidden blind spots.
For teams that cannot share repo contents, we're also exploring offline/local execution models.
If you've run this process in practice:
1) What output format made reviewers trust the result?
2) What made reports stall or get ignored?
3) If you required local/offline execution, what constraints mattered most?
Context: I'm building in this space, so I'm looking for concrete operator feedback, not generic opinions.
mthdadalto•1h ago
In our experience, three things matter most: - deterministic reruns (same input, same output), - traceable claims (path/hash/line), - explicit unknowns instead of hidden blind spots.
For teams that cannot share repo contents, we're also exploring offline/local execution models.
If you've run this process in practice: 1) What output format made reviewers trust the result? 2) What made reports stall or get ignored? 3) If you required local/offline execution, what constraints mattered most?
Context: I'm building in this space, so I'm looking for concrete operator feedback, not generic opinions.