Named in the Gartner® Hype Cycle™ for Application Security 2026

Our SCW AI Trust Index tested 16 leading AI models across 1,760 codebases and found an average of 15 confirmed vulnerabilities per codebase, with the same flaw types (logging sensitive data, injection, hard-coded credentials) recurring no matter which model wrote the code. The exposure Gartner is forecasting for 2027 is already shipping today. And Secure Code Warrior can measure it. 

Agentic code production is outpacing most AppSec teams' ability to review it. Closing that gap takes two things: control over what AI agents can touch in your codebase, and developers skilled enough to catch and remediate what agents get wrong. Those are exactly the two categories SCW is named in: Agentic Coding Security and Secure Coding Training in the Gartner report.
‍

Why according to us this matters for CISOs and AppSec leaders

You can approve AI coding tools, or you can prove what they did in production. Most programs can't do both.

Agentic coding assistants, AI code security assistants, and MCP-connected agents are already writing and reviewing production code. When something is amiss, many security leaders are focusing their attention on the wrong part of the problem. If the question being asked is whether you should have allowed AI tools in the first place, instead of whether you can show which tool touched the affected code, whether it met your secure coding standard at commit, and whether the developer who approved it was qualified to, then the approach was flawed from the outset. That's the gap a board, a regulator, or an insurer will ask about, and it's the gap Gartner is describing when it names Agentic Coding Security here.

Reachability and posture tools help you triage what's already broken. They don't stop AI from introducing the next issue.

ASPM, reachability analysis, and AI code security assistants are all named in this same report because they're genuinely useful for cutting through vulnerability noise, but they work downstream of the code already existing. Governing what agents can touch and building developer capability to catch bad output work upstream of it.

Every pass through that loop incurs a token cost — and none of it addresses the root cause.

Generating the code costs tokens. Scanning it for vulnerabilities costs more. Prompting an agent to fix what the scanner flagged costs more still. That's three separate token spends to patch a flaw that a trained developer, or a properly guided agent, wouldn't have introduced in the first place. Fixing the root cause — the skill and judgment behind the commit, human or AI-assisted — is what stops you from paying for the same mistake three times over.

Secure Coding Training earned its own line item for a specific reason: skill hasn't kept pace with tooling.

This report's own survey data show that 68% of software engineering leaders rate application security as highly important, but secure coding skills are still largely absent from general software engineering education, and AI-generated code is shipping faster than most teams can review. Training is the control that scales alongside agentic adoption instead of lagging behind it.

That's why SCW treats AI software governance and secure coding training as one platform.

Eleven years of secure coding data taught us what "qualified to review AI-generated code" actually looks like. The governance layer for AI-driven software development: visibility, policy, and traceability, is built on top of that same skill data, so what you observe about a developer's capability directly shapes what you govern and what they train on next.
‍

SCW named in two categories

‍

How SCW answers the four questions

‍

Ready to govern AI-driven development?

See how Secure Code Warrior gives your engineering teams the visibility, guardrails, and capability to securely adopt AI development — at every stage of the transition.
‍
Talk to us → securecodewarrior.com

‍_{Gartner, Hype Cycle for Application Security, Dionisio Zumerle, July 2026. Gartner does not endorse any vendor, product or service depicted in its research publications and does not advise technology users to select only those vendors with the highest ratings or other designation. Gartner research publications consist of the opinions of Gartner's research and advisory organization and should not be construed as statements of fact. Gartner disclaims all warranties, expressed or implied, with respect to this research, including any warranties of merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose. GARTNER is a registered trademark and service mark of Gartner, Inc. and/or its affiliates in the U.S. and internationally.}‍