Corridor

Corridor is joining Cognition to build the future of Devin Security. We’re grateful for the support of our customers, investors, and partners along the way, and we can’t wait to show you what we build next.

AI can save time writing code, but it has the tendency to create more work for the person reviewing it. At Corridor, we built a skill to help agents write clearer PR descriptions and check them against the code. We’ve shared what worked and the skill itself: corridor.dev/research/pr-des…

While we were in New York, we hosted a happy hour for security and engineering practitioners to get together and talk about what it takes to secure AI-driven development. Our CEO @jackhcable shared our recent research on coding agents. A routine support ticket was enough to get agents to run malware and leak secrets. As agents take on more of the work, their own judgment can't be the only guardrail. We also heard from @JamesBerthoty (@latiotech), @Guy_Flechter (@SolaSecurity) and @kylebhiro (@runpensar), on topics ranging from securing coding agents to the limits of LLMs on defense. A common thread: agents have changed both how code gets written and how it gets attacked, and security has to move closer to where the code is being written. Our takeaway: the goal isn't to slow agents down. It's to give teams the confidence to let them do more. Thank you to @SolaSecurity for sponsoring, to our speakers, and to everyone who came out.

Last week in New York, we brought together a small group of security, AI and engineering leaders from companies including @clay, @figma, @crosbylegal, and Numerix, along with analysts from Latio, for dinner and a candid conversation about the problem everyone is feeling right now: AI is writing code faster than ever, and security hasn't kept up. A lot of the industry is focused on using AI to find and patch vulnerabilities. Around the table, the view was that this misses the point. Securing existing codebases matters, but if the code agents are writing today isn't secure, teams are creating problems faster than they can fix them. Our takeaway: autonomous development, done well, should make software stronger, not riskier. Thanks to everyone who joined us.

We recently demonstrated that TypeSafe’s Jev could be used to gate when our security scan should be run. Since then, OpenAI, Microsoft, Perplexity, and a dozen others shipped decision models of their own. So we ran all of them through the same benchmark for this task. The top two models are Perplexity's Decider and TypeSafe's Jev 1.14. At any budget for latency, cost, or precision, Decider or Jev catches the most vulnerable posts. The rest are at or below the performance of an LLM gate. Full results and the dataset in our latest post: corridor.dev/blog/decision-m…

This time next week, Corridor will be in NYC! 🏙️ ​Join us for happy hour on Thursday, October 15th and hear from @JamesBerthoty and @Guy_Flechter about approaches to securing agentic coding plus @jackhcable's recent research on AI Agents targeting government websites. Come for free food and drinks but stay to exchange best practices in this new age of appsec 🍕🍻 Register today: luma.com/corridor-wkbl

Coding agents now open PRs and push commits in long-running sessions where humans barely look. Our security enforcement for long-running agents scans every change before the agent commits, but a full scan on every commit is slow and expensive, and many commits are obviously safe. So we put a gate in front of each scan to decide which commits need the full check. We tested five gates: Jev (a decision model), CLM-8B, and three LLMs prompted for a confidence score. Jev halved our scanning costs and raised precision with minimal loss in recall. LLM gates helped, but less. CLM-8B off the shelf did not work as a gate. We wrote up what we learned in our latest blogpost: corridor.dev/blog/decision-m…

Today, we're launching Security Enforcement for long-running agents. Code is written by agents and nobody is watching. Traditional security reviews aren’t built for this approach, but Corridor is. Today we launched Security Enforcement for long-running agents. We built this to keep security in the loop by enforcing your organization’s security guardrails at commit time. Live for teams on Devin, Claude Code web, Codex, & Cursor: corridor.dev/long-running-ag…

Just a few more weeks until the Corridor team hits the road and we're in NYC! Join us on Thursday, October 15th for discussions on the state of appsec today, lightning talks on agentic development and security's role to play. Plus free food and drinks all night! 🎤🍻🍕 RSVP today: luma.com/corridor-wkbl

"Move fast and break things" shaped a generation of software. With AI agents writing more and more of our code, moving fast and breaking things is actually detrimental. At Corridor, we move fast and break nothing, the idea behind our Move Fast, Break Nothing series. We'll be in NYC to gather security and industry practitioners and discuss AI development, software factories and what appsec looks like now. We'll have lightning talks, including one from @JamesBerthoty from Latio, plus food and drinks on us. 🍕🍻 RSVP today: luma.com/corridor-wkbl

We made human code review optional at Corridor, but our old GPT-5.5 reviewer in Cursor was approving PRs with correctness and security issues we caught later in development. So we tested four models on 197 historical PRs in the same Claude Code harness. Luna cut false approvals by 60% compared with GPT-5.5, at roughly 21× lower estimated cost per PR. Luna’s false approval rate was 8.7% at $0.18 per PR. Terra’s was even lower at 5.0%, for $1.28 per PR. Grok-4.6 approved nearly half the PRs our reference said needed human review and let through the most high-severity issues. Against Codex Code Review as the auto-approver, Luna made about 76% fewer false approvals. Grok made about 38% more. We wrote up what we learned in our latest blogpost: corridor.dev/blog/how-changi…

Move Fast, Break Nothing is our regional event series for security leaders and practitioners. Our first next stop is New York City on October 14 and 15! Wednesday, October 14 is a dinner for senior industry leaders to have a candid discussion on what is actually working as AI coding agents change how software gets built and reviewed. Thursday, October 15 is the practitioner half where we'll have drinks, food, and three short talks, including James Berthoty from Latio. If you're a security engineers, appsec, prodsec, devsecops, or an engineer shipping agentic code, learn from fellow colleagues on how they're building securely. RSVP today 👇 Dinner: luma.com/corridor-a4jm Happy Hour: luma.com/corridor-wkbl

It's back to school season and before summer is officially over, we're highlighting our Office Warming Party. Earlier this year we moved into the new office in South Beach and celebrated our Series A. We wore hard hats (a nod to software factories!), had exciting lightning talks, and brought the community together. The best part wasn't the party itself. It was looking around the room and realizing how much this team has grown this year, and we're still growing! If you want to join a fast growing company at the intersection of AI and cybersecurity, check out our open roles: corridor.dev/jobs/

We build on @danshapiro's levels of software autonomy to release a taxonomy for organizations wondering what level of AI adoption they’re at: the Levels of Autonomy in Software Development. L0 is defined by no AI coding, while L5 is a fully fledged software factory. Most teams are somewhere in the middle. In this blog we define each level by who reviews and approves a change, and how we're moving to L5 and beyond. Read more in the blog post: corridor.dev/blog/levels-of-…

Joining industry leaders on a call for collective action to strengthen cyber defense 🤝 Read the open letter: openai.com/collective-cyberd… xitter.twitterapi.xyz/jackhcable/status/2093…

We couldn't agree more, @AshwinRamaswami! xitter.twitterapi.xyz/AshwinRamaswami/status…