The Digital Press

Anthropic's Claude Code includes a "Security Review" feature that scans code for common vulnerabilities, but its effectiveness has limits. While it can catch obvious issues, it should complement, not replace, thorough human and automated security testing.

Why it matters: Claude’s security review adds an AI-driven layer to catch common vulnerabilities early in development workflows.

The stakes: Relying solely on AI review risks missing complex or novel security flaws unique to specific environments.

The big picture: Combining AI checks with traditional security practices like manual reviews, static/dynamic testing, and fuzzing remains essential.

Commenters say: Readers appreciate the tool’s potential and ease but caution it’s no substitute for comprehensive security processes.