Continuous threat modeling
From the user story, into the ticket, verified at the PR.
ExploreUse case · Secure vibe coding
Every feature now starts as a prompt. Security has to start there too.
Vibe coding moves at the speed of a prompt. Reykur sits inside the agent loop and reviews every plan against your threat model before a single line of code is written.
❯
Works with Claude Code · Codex · Cursor and other major coding agents
One real session
A flaw caught before the code is written.
One prompt, one plan, one interjection. The whole review happens inside the agent loop, in seconds.
Add SSO to the billing portalDrafting a plan…1. Add OIDC provider config2. Wire callback route3. Store session token, signed HS256
Reykur · 7 requirements from your threat modelRevising the plan…3. Store session token, signed RS2564. Set cookie SameSite=Strict; Secure5. Validate state + ID token issuer
Reykur · 7 requirements from your threat modelCritSign session tokens with RS256, never HS256ASVS 3.5.2
HighValidate the OIDC state parameterASVS 51.2.1
HighBind the session cookie to SameSite and SecureASVS 3.4.1
+ 4 more, scoped to this taskPlan approved · 0 open requirements · the agent writes secure code from here
The same flaw, two lives
Caught in the plan, it costs ~30 seconds.
Caught in production, the same flaw means a rewrite, a second review and weeks of lost time. Sometimes worse.
Without a reviewer in the looptotal: ~4 weeks
Minute 0PromptAgent plans, HS256 flaw inside
Hour 2MergedFlaw is now code, tests pass
Day 1DeployedForgeable session tokens in prod
Week 3Pen-test findingCritical: auth bypass
Week 4Rewrite & re-reviewKey rotation, forced re-login, a week lost
With Reykur in the looptotal: + ~30 seconds
Minute 0PromptAgent plans, HS256 flaw inside
+ ~30 secondsReykur interjectsRequirement injected, plan corrected before any code
Hour 2Merged cleanRS256, state validated, cookies bound
Day 1Deployed ✓Nothing to find three weeks later
Not generic AI advice
Every requirement has a paper trail.
Nothing is invented in the moment. Each interjection traces from a threat in your model, through a deterministic control library, into the plan the agent executes.
Threat · your modelSession token forgeryFrom the living threat model Reykur keeps for your product.
Control · libraryASVS 3.5.2: asymmetric token signingCurated libraries built on OWASP ASVS, SOC 2 and more. 300+ requirements.
Requirement · in the plan“Sign session tokens with RS256”Risk-based mapping surfaces only what matters for this change. Seven, not 300+.
Shipped · on recordSecure and compliant, by designThe feature ships with every requirement addressed and the decision trail stored for audit.
How it fits the threat model
New product · no model yetThe plan becomes the first model.Components, data and boundaries are read out of the agent's plan into a first threat model, and the review runs against that from the very first prompt.
Existing product · new featureThe plan updates the model.Whatever the plan changes about the product, a new component, a new flow, a moved boundary, is written back into the threat model. The integration reads the model and enriches it. It never works from a stale copy.
For security teams
See the risks that matter, and skip the noise.
Every plan the team ships is stored and searchable: what was built, which risks it carried and how each one was mitigated. Posture you can measure.
Example: one team, one month
4critical flaws stopped before code
17high flaws stopped before code
312plans reviewed
Vibe coding is not the risk.Doing it without a threat model is.
Live in under 2 minutes: one token, one install. Your agents keep shipping while your threat model starts reviewing.
Explore the other use cases
Traditional threat modeling
Run a design review on a collaborative canvas, without it dying on a whiteboard.
ExploreGet early access
Be among the first to try Reykur and help shape continuous product security.
No spam. We'll only email you about Reykur.