AI platform for automated code review, security risk detection across the SDLC. AI-generated from public sourcesThe starting point for every profile: auto-generated by 0-Doubt from public vendor materials, and not yet confirmed by the vendor or an independent analyst. Nothing here is hidden or overstated — it simply has not been reviewed yet.Where every profile starts, before the vendor or an analyst has reviewed it. A higher label means a more independent source — not a better product.How trust works →
Capabilities AI-generated from public sourcesThe starting point for every profile: auto-generated by 0-Doubt from public vendor materials, and not yet confirmed by the vendor or an independent analyst. Nothing here is hidden or overstated — it simply has not been reviewed yet.Where every profile starts, before the vendor or an analyst has reviewed it. A higher label means a more independent source — not a better product.How trust works →
Code review for agents
Governance for humans
Context aware PR review
Shift left review skills
Local review workflows
Deterministic, enforceable standards
Rules system
Risk intelligence
Audit trail
Repo relationship mapping
System of record
State of the art context engineering
Zero data retention
SOC 2 Type II certified
On-premises deployment
Read by an AI model from qodo.ai’s own pages. What the vendor says it does, not independently verified.
Trust profile — 0 of 5 independent signals established
0 of 5 independent trust signals established
Nothing about Qodo has been independently confirmed yet. That is a starting point, not a finding — every profile begins here, and it says nothing about the product.
Not yet established: Independently verified · Operating durability · Behaviour under stress · Disclosure posture · Momentum
Trust profileHow to read thisFive separate questions a buyer actually asks, each answered with its own evidence and a link to the source. There is deliberately no overall score: a single number invites comparison it cannot support, and would mostly reflect how much of Qodo we have managed to scan rather than anything about the vendor.
Not checked means we have not looked yet, and is never counted against a vendor. Limited means we did look, but found only one line of evidence — enough to report, not enough to corroborate.
checked 13 of 16 signals
Limited
Independently verified
Has anyone other than the vendor confirmed this?
checked 3 of 4
1 independent source(s) corroborate this vendor's claims.
How long this vendor has been operating, and who stands behind them.
Security & trust signalsAbout these signalsCertifications are labeled by how well evidenced each one is — confirmed in a public registry, stated by the vendor, or merely detected on a page — and every claim links to its source. Security headers are checked live against the vendor's homepage, re-checked every 90 days. These are independent signals and are not blended into a single score.
9 of 9 technical checks completed — not a score, just coverage
Certifications & compliance claimsWhat the tiers meanVerified in a public registry — we confirmed this against an authoritative public registry (FedRAMP Marketplace, CSA STAR) and re-check it by the registry's own identifier. Stated by the vendor — the vendor says it on a page they control; a sourced claim about themselves, not an independent check. Detected on a page — found during automated enrichment, neither registry-confirmed nor stated on the vendor's own site.
Some certifications have no public registry at all — SOC 2 and HIPAA among them. For those, “not registry-verified” is not a shortfall and means nothing about the vendor.
Some of these (SOC 2, HIPAA and similar) have no public registry, so no one can independently verify them — that is a fact about the framework, not about this vendor.
Security headers (5/5) — checked 10/18/2026
✓ Strict-Transport-Security
✓ Content-Security-Policy
Exploitation riskLow riskHow this is measuredCombines four public sources, each answering a different question. CVSS (NVD) scores how bad exploitation would be. KEV (CISA) confirms exploitation is happening. EPSS (FIRST) estimates the chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. LEV (NIST CSWP 41) compounds a CVE's own EPSS history into the chance it has already been exploited. “Elevated” means EPSS at or above 10%; LEV is counted as material at 10%. LEV and EPSS are statistical estimates about a vulnerability, not findings about this vendor — and LEV is a stated lower bound, so “10%” means “at least 10%”, never “probably happened”. The underlying CVEs are matched to this vendor by name, not by exact product/version, so check each linked NVD record before drawing conclusions.
1 of 1 CVEs assessed
0
confirmed exploited
0
EPSS ≥ 10%
6.9%
highest single CVE
Likely-exploited estimates here rest on a median of 2 EPSS observations per CVE — too little history to read as a trend yet. It deepens daily as scores are collected.
Known CVEs (1)About this listSourced from the public NVD database, matched by vendor name. This is a name-based match, not exact version tracking — always check the linked NVD record for affected versions before drawing conclusions. “New” means published within the last 30 days. “Actively exploited” means CISA's Known Exploited Vulnerabilities (KEV) catalog confirms real-world exploitation, not just a theoretical severity score. An “EPSS” chip appears at 10% and above: that is FIRST's estimated chance of exploitation in the next 30 days, which measures likelihood rather than impact and so can differ sharply from the severity beside it. See the Exploitation risk panel above for the full picture.
A path traversal vulnerability in all versions of the Qodo Qodo Gen IDE enables a threat actor to read arbitrary local files in and outside of current projects on an end user’s system. The vulnerabili…
Data coverage: 27/100What this measures (and doesn't)
Not a quality rating or endorsement — a measure of how much verified, disclosed data we actually have about this vendor. A low score usually means "we don't have much verified information yet," not "this is a bad vendor." Never used to sort or rank vendor lists.
The platform admin controls the formula's weights.
Data coverage profileHow to read thisThe same four components behind the data coverage score above, shaped instead of listed — a vendor strong on verification but thin on buyer feedback looks visibly different from one that's the other way around. Security and feedback plot at the neutral midpoint (50) when there's no data yet (no products tracked, no reviews), matching how the actual score itself treats missing data — not a guess either way.
Products (1)
Product information on this page is auto-generated by 0-Doubt from public sources and not yet confirmed by the vendor or an independent analyst, unless an item is individually labelled otherwise. How trust works →
A path traversal vulnerability in all versions of the Qodo Qodo Gen IDE enables a threat actor to read arbitrary local files in and outside of current projects …
