Your AI Coding Tools Are Only as Safe as Your Slowest Approval Process#28
Draft
superterran wants to merge 1 commit intomainfrom
Draft
Your AI Coding Tools Are Only as Safe as Your Slowest Approval Process#28superterran wants to merge 1 commit intomainfrom
superterran wants to merge 1 commit intomainfrom
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
2 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
📝 Blog Draft — Wild Card
Hook: The real bottleneck for AI adoption in enterprise engineering is not the technology or even the security risk; it is the approval process that was designed for a world where tooling changed once a year, not once a week.
Angle: Enterprise approval processes for developer tooling (security review, responsible AI review, data protection review) were built for a cadence where new tools appeared annually. AI tooling moves weekly. The mismatch creates a shadow tooling problem: developers adopt unapproved tools because the approved ones are months behind, and the org loses visibility into what is actually running in its environment. The solution is not to relax security standards. It is to build an approval process that can move at the speed of the tooling it governs, with clear tiers for risk and a fast lane for tools that stay within existing data boundaries.
Source material: bai/transcripts/plaud-2026-04-09-04-09-meeting-pre-sales-ai-automation-tooling-approval-and-security-guardrails.md (RAI/DPO/ISG three-gate approval, gray area tools, Claude under review, MDM shutdown risk); bai/transcripts/plaud-2026-04-01-04-01-meeting-supply-chain-security-and-ai-integration.md (npm supply chain attack, ISG blocking npmjs, Claude approval pending, shadow tooling); bai/transcripts/plaud-2026-04-29-04-29-weekly-meeting-legacy-salesforce-decommission-ai-governance-copilot-adoption-zscaler-ssl-issues-and-claude-approval-status.md (Copilot rollout, Claude approval status, governance roadmap); bai/transcripts/plaud-2026-04-28-04-28-meeting-ai-tooling-strategy-agent-workflows-knowledge-management-and-cost-optimization.md (multi-model hedging, token-based pricing risk, LLM-agnostic skills, gray area adoption)
Draft is in
dotcom/content/blog/2026-05-05-ai-tools-safe-as-slowest-approval-process.md. Edit directly on this branch or merge as-is.To publish: merge this PR. The
blog-publishworkflow will auto-generate a LinkedIn post and cross-post it.To discard: close without merging.