Evaluating LLMs on their ability to detect subtle logic bugs, CWE vulnerabilities, and performance regressions. We measure the critical balance between recall (catching the bug) and precision (avoiding false positives).
A code reviewer that flags every line is useless. We benchmark LLMs heavily on their False Positive Rate (FPR) to ensure they are helpful tools, not noisy distractions.
A curated dataset of subtle race conditions, off-by-one errors, and memory leaks sourced from real-world production outages.
Models are heavily penalized in our scoring system for 'hallucinating' bugs or providing overly pedantic stylistic nitpicks.
Evaluations mapped directly to the Common Weakness Enumeration framework, testing zero-day recognition capabilities.
Traditional linters catch syntax. We train and evaluate LLMs to catch semantic and architectural flaws that require deep understanding of the developer's intent.
Can the model detect when a change in `api_router.py` breaks an assumption made in `database_schema.sql`?
Identifying N+1 query problems or unintended nested loops that will cause performance regressions under load.
Catching hard-coded secrets, SQL injection vectors, and improper input sanitization before they hit staging.
Understanding our automated security audit and PR review benchmarks.