GitHub City VS AxonBuild

AxonBuild's answer:

AxonBuild publishes its own data: 26 real audits of AI-built apps, with the failure rates and score distribution public. Every audit checks the same 12 launch-readiness areas, and every finding is confirmed against the actual code and pinned to a file and line, so there is nothing generic in the report.

AxonBuild's answer:

Most alternatives are automated scanners. Scanners are good at telling you a protection exists; they cannot tell you whether it holds. In 3 of 21 audits, scanners flagged 33 to 44 known CVEs, and none were reachable from the app. AxonBuild verifies what actually breaks, ranks it by consequence, and tells you what to ignore.

AxonBuild's answer:

Founders and small teams who built an app with AI tools like Lovable, Bolt, Cursor, or v0, and are about to take real users, real data, or real payments. Usually non-security people who need to know what would break before customers find it.

AxonBuild's answer:

AxonBuild started with auditing apps built with AI coding tools and finding the same failures over and over: policies that pass a publish check but do not hold, backups nobody ever restored, errors recorded nowhere. After 26 audits, zero had come out launch-ready, so the findings became a scored methodology and the data became public.