Building VibeSafe has taught me something I didn't expect:
Finding security issues is only half the problem. Helping people understand what to do next is just as important.
Our first approach was simple — scan the code, find issues, and show the results.
But as the scanner became more powerful, the results became more complicated.
A developer could see:
🔴 Critical issues
🟠 High-risk issues
🟡 Medium issues
📁 File locations
💻 Code snippets
🛠️ Recommended fixes
Technically, that's useful.
But for someone who isn't a security expert, it can quickly become overwhelming.
So we're changing the experience.
Instead of simply saying:
"You have 8 security issues."
We want VibeSafe to answer three questions:
1. What is wrong?
2. Why does it matter?
3. How do I fix it?
And then make it easy to fix → rescan → verify.
That's becoming an important part of what VibeSafe is about.
AI makes it incredibly easy to build an app quickly.
But getting from "it works" to "it's safe to ship" is a different problem.
That's the problem I'm trying to solve.
I'd love feedback from other founders:
When a security tool gives you a long list of issues, what information do you actually want to see first?
This is a really useful perspective. I especially like the idea of showing the release decision first rather than making users interpret a list of severity levels.
“Safe to ship / Ship with exceptions / Block release” could make the result much more actionable.
And the reproducibility point is important too. With AI-generated changes happening so frequently, knowing exactly which version was scanned and being able to compare the result after a rescan would make the fix → rescan → verify loop much more meaningful.
I’m going to add this to our product thinking. Thanks for the detailed feedback! 🙌