How to Eliminate the Technical Debt of Insecure AI-Assisted Software Development
AI will speed you up. It will also bury you in debt if you let it ship unchecked. Forecasts point to 2026 as the year tech debt spikes for 75% of companies due to AI's growth, and software teams will feel it first.
AI coding assistants are everywhere, and output expectations keep climbing. Too many teams skip safety controls, ship code, and hope for the best. Then they spend weeks backtracking to find where a gap slipped in. That delay is expensive and avoidable.
The problem is here now: one in five organizations has already faced a serious security incident tied to AI-generated code. Nearly two-thirds of LLM-produced coding solutions are incorrect or vulnerable, and roughly half of the "correct" ones are still insecure. Translation: LLMs don't produce deployment-ready code without human review.
AI also struggles with context-heavy risks like authentication, access control, and configuration. Those are the places attackers live. If you let issues pile up, the rework later will be slower, costlier, and more visible.
Shadow AI makes it worse. About half of developers use unapproved assistants, which kills visibility across the SDLC and increases the chance of serious compromise. After an incident, tools don't take the blame-organizations do. Overreliance also dulls pattern recognition and weakens fundamentals, especially for junior engineers.
Treat AI like a junior developer, not an autopilot
AI is a high-output collaborator that needs oversight. Pair-program with it. Make human code review the first line of defense. Your judgment decides what ships.
The playbook: reduce risk without killing speed
- Set clear guardrails. Standardize prompts, coding conventions, and security policies. Make thorough code review non-negotiable, especially for AI-suggested changes.
- Enforce review with intent. Require human-in-the-loop on every AI-assisted PR. Combine reviews with static analysis, SCA, secrets scanning, and IaC checks.
- Stop shadow AI. Provide approved assistants, document allowed models, and block unvetted tools. Log usage to maintain traceability.
- Train continuously. Run hands-on secure coding labs aligned to CISA's Secure by Design. Benchmark skills so you can see who needs help and where.
- Redefine tool assessments. Pilot each LLM against real workflows. Score precision, false positives/negatives, adherence to your policies, and performance under red-team prompts.
- Create a trust score. Blend tool-usage telemetry, vulnerability data, and verified secure coding skills to quantify risk per team, repo, and model.
- Ship secure by default. Maintain templates and snippets with baked-in auth, sane RBAC, safer configs, and logging. Make the secure path the shortest path.
- Pin versions and document context. Lock model versions, system prompts, and plugin sets. Capture reasoning notes in the PR so reviewers see the "why," not just the diff.
- Automate stopgaps. Block merges on critical findings, missing tests, or absent reviews. Fail builds that introduce secrets or weaken auth.
- Close the loop. Feed post-incident learnings back into prompts, templates, and policies. Treat every miss as an update to the system, not a one-off fix.
What to measure (so debt can't hide)
- Vulnerabilities per KLOC (by severity) and escaped-critical counts.
- MTTR for remediation and the percentage of AI-authored code with human review.
- Policy adherence: model version pinning, prompt logging coverage, DLP events.
- Build health: scan pass rate, flaky test reduction, and rollback frequency.
If your team needs structured, practical upskilling on AI-assisted coding and security, explore our developer-focused training and certifications: AI Certification for Coding.
The bottom line
There are no shortcuts in the SDLC. Treat AI as a capable teammate that still needs supervision. Put guardrails, reviews, metrics, assessments, and ongoing training in place. You'll cut risk, curb tech debt, and still get the speed you want.
Your membership also unlocks:
