I'm building a GitHub bot that catches AI and cloud security mistakes automatically
Most security tools were built before AI apps existed. They don't know what an exposed OpenAI key looks like. They don't flag overpermissioned IAM roles. They don't catch unprotected model endpoints.
I'm building a GitHub App that reviews every PR specifically for AI and cloud security issues — hardcoded API keys, insecure S3 configs, missing rate limiting on AI APIs, prompt injection risks.
Install it once. It runs on every PR forever.
Why I'm building this
AI startups move fast and skip security reviews. One exposed key or misconfigured IAM policy can cost thousands. No existing tool is focused on this specific stack.
Where I am today
Day 1. Stack decided: Probot (Node.js) + Gemini 2.5 Flash + GitHub Marketplace. Building in public for the next 3 months.
Goal: $100 in the first week after launch.
I'll be posting updates every 2-3 weeks. If this sounds useful to you, follow along — I'll be sharing everything including what I find scanning real AI repos.
Would love feedback: what security mistakes have you seen in AI/cloud repos that tools missed?
The wedge is right.
Most code scanners still treat AI repos like normal SaaS codebases, which is exactly where they miss the expensive failures.
The real risk usually is not just leaked keys.
It is:
model endpoints with no auth / rate limits
overly broad IAM on storage / inference paths
prompt injection exposure through retrieval / tool use
logging sensitive prompts / outputs into places they should never land
That is the part most “security” tooling still barely understands.
If you keep it narrow and make it the default PR check for AI repos, this gets interesting fast.
Also worth thinking about the naming early.
If this becomes the security layer for AI shipping workflows, the product likely outgrows a generic “GitHub bot” frame pretty quickly.
Vroth.com would carry this better if it becomes the hard-edge security layer behind modern AI repos.
This is really helpful, thank you.
The four failure modes you listed are sharper than how I framed them. Especially the prompt logging one — that's the silent risk nobody talks about until something leaks.
The naming point landed too. "GitHub bot" is just how I'm describing it right now for distribution, but you're right that it'll outgrow that frame fast if it becomes the default check for AI repos.
What's your background here — security, infra, or building AI products yourself?
Mostly product positioning + naming for technical products.
I look for the gap between what the product is currently being called and what it actually wants to become.
In your case, “GitHub bot” is useful for explaining the wedge, but it is too small for the trust layer you’re pointing at.
If this becomes the default PR check for AI repos, the name has to feel more like security infrastructure than automation.
That’s why Vroth stood out.
It has the hard-edge, infra/security feel without boxing you into “AI scanner” or “GitHub bot.”
This reframe is useful. "GitHub bot" is how I'm distributing it, not what it is. The distinction matters.
"Security infrastructure" is the right frame if this becomes the default PR check for AI repos. Something that teams don't think about after installing — it's just there, running on everything.
Vroth is interesting. Hard-edge, no category baggage. I'm keeping it in consideration as the product grows past the GitHub App frame.
What's your read on timing — does the name matter most at launch or after you've proven the core value?
It matters earlier than most technical founders think.
Not before the product is clear.
But once the wedge is clear, the name starts shaping how people categorize it.
If you launch as a GitHub bot, people evaluate it like automation.
If you launch as AI repo security infrastructure, people evaluate it like protection.
Same product.
Different trust level.
That matters especially in security because buyers decide quickly whether something feels serious enough to sit in the workflow.
So I would not wait until it fully outgrows the GitHub App frame.
I’d tighten the frame while the category is still forming.
That’s exactly why Vroth fits here.
It gives you the harder security-infra read before the market locks you into “AI scanner bot.”
If useful, we can continue on LinkedIn and pressure-test Vroth against the product direction properly:
www.linkedin.com/in/aryan-y-0163b0278
The timing point makes sense. Naming shapes how buyers categorize before they even try the product. Locking into "AI scanner bot" at launch makes it harder to reframe later even if the product earns a bigger category.
Changed name to VrothSec. (Vroth was alredy taken for a repo by someone). The GitHub App, landing page, and bot are all renamed. The harder security-infra read is the right frame.
Appreciate the pushback on timing — it landed before launch, which is exactly when it needed to.
Also, I am not in linked in.
Thank you for your help.
That’s a strong move.
VrothSec already reads much closer to security infrastructure than “GitHub bot.”
One important note: I actually own Vroth.com.
That’s why I mentioned it specifically.
If this becomes the default security layer for AI repos, I’d think carefully about the structure:
Vroth as the company / infrastructure brand
VrothSec as the security product or module
That gives you room to expand beyond one scanner without renaming again.
Since you already moved in that direction before launch, Vroth.com is probably worth locking down before the product gets more visible.
The Vroth / VrothSec structure makes sense as the product grows. One for the infrastructure brand, one for the security product.
Noted on Vroth.com. What are you thinking in terms of that — open to a conversation?
Yes, open to a conversation.
Since you already moved the product toward VrothSec, Vroth.com is the cleaner long-term brand layer if this expands beyond the initial GitHub App.
The way I’d think about it:
Vroth.com as the company / infra brand
VrothSec as the AI repo security product
That keeps the security angle sharp now without boxing the whole company into one module later.
I’m not looking to casually shop it around, but if you’re serious about building on this direction, I’d be open to a clean acquisition discussion.
Appreciate the transparency. The brand structure makes sense long term — Vroth as the company layer, VrothSec as the product.
Not in a position to have that conversation right now. Zero revenue, day 5. Once the product has proven traction I'd be open to revisiting it.
Totally fair.
Day 5 with zero revenue is early, so I understand not wanting to make a full brand acquisition decision immediately.
The only reason I’d still think about it now is that you’ve already moved the product toward VrothSec publicly.
That creates a small risk later:
if VrothSec gets traction, Vroth.com becomes more important exactly when it becomes harder to negotiate calmly.
You don’t need to use Vroth.com today.
But if this is the direction you’re committing to, it may be worth at least discussing a practical way to secure the brand layer early, before traction makes the decision more expensive and more urgent.
If you’re open, we can keep it simple and talk through what would make sense for where you are right now.
The risk you're describing is real — traction does make brand decisions more expensive. I get that.
But the honest answer is: I'm not in a position to make a brand acquisition decision before the product has a single paying user. That's not the right sequence for where I am.
If VrothSec gets traction, I'll revisit Vroth.com as the first serious conversation. Until then, I need to stay focused on proving the product.
One practical thought after our VrothSec conversation.
I would not push the Vroth.com acquisition again until the product has some traction, since you were clear that revenue comes first.
But since you already renamed to VrothSec before launch, the next important thing is making sure the positioning actually helps you get those first serious users.
For this product, the risk is that people still read it as a GitHub bot or AI scanner instead of a security layer for AI repos.
I’m doing a few focused naming/positioning audits at $99 while refining the format. For VrothSec, I’d make it very specific: security category frame, landing page trust signal, first-line positioning, buyer perception, and whether the product reads serious enough for developers to install it into their repo workflow.
Not a long consulting thing. Just a sharp written breakdown you can use before more launch copy, GitHub docs, and early user memory build around the current frame.
If useful, I can do that for VrothSec and keep it practical.
Totally fair.
I understand not wanting to make a brand acquisition decision before revenue.
One practical thought though: since you already moved publicly toward VrothSec, securing Vroth.com does not have to be a later-stage decision if the only blocker is timing or budget.
I’d rather keep it founder-friendly now than have it become a more expensive problem later if VrothSec gets traction.
If you wanted to lock it early, I could make Vroth.com available at $1,500 for a clean immediate transfer.
That gives you the full brand layer before traction, while keeping it realistic for where the product is right now.
No pressure either way. If now is still too early, I respect that. I just wanted to give you a practical early option since the name direction is already live.