Why agentic remediation carries 20% of our score

The case for a high weight

A findings queue is the oldest problem in application security. Coding agents make it larger, because more code means more findings. An agent that writes the fix, checks it and lands it for review changes the unit of work from "investigate and fix" to "review and merge". That is a bigger change to an AppSec team's day than most features, which is why remediation is our second-largest criterion.

The case against

There are good reasons not to weight it higher. Fix agents are young: several were announced between June and September 2026, and some are in preview. A fix can be wrong in ways a scanner will not catch. And a buyer with a small findings queue may care far more about governing the agents that write code than about fixing their output.

That is why remediation sits below the three agent governance criteria (25% together) and why no criterion is above 30%.

How we score it

We look for four things on the vendor's pages:

1. Scope. Which finding types the agent fixes: first-party code, dependencies, code quality.
2. Landing. Whether the fix arrives as a branch and pull request.
3. Validation. Whether the vendor says the fix is checked before review.
4. Stage. Generally available, preview or not stated.

Applied to the vendors' pages read in September 2026 and updated on 11 October 2026:

• GitHub Advanced Security and Legit Security score 9: GitHub's agentic autofix is generally available for Code Quality findings, fixes on a branch, validates and opens a pull request; Legit's remediation agents fix SAST and dependency findings, re-scan and open a pull request.
• Endor Labs scores 8: AURI Agents write SAST fixes or file exceptions, and SCA Remediation runs the build and opens the PR, behind approval gates.
• Cycode scores 7: the AI Fix and Remediation Agent produces PR-ready fixes matched to the codebase; validation is not stated.
• Aikido Security and OX Security score 6: Aikido's AutoFix proposes fixes as pull requests, and OX delivers one-click fixes in IDEs and pull requests; neither states validation.
• Snyk and Apiiro score 5: Snyk's remediation agent is in public preview, and Apiiro lists AutoFix without detail on scope or landing.
• Semgrep scores 4: its pages describe remediation guidance rather than an agent that lands the fix.
• Wiz Code scores 6: Wiz Skills let coding agents apply fixes in the IDE through Wiz Green Agent; validation is not stated.
• Backslash Security scores 2: no agent that writes fixes is described on its pages.

What happens at other weights

If you set remediation to zero in the agent risk calculator, platforms strong on governance and triage rise and GitHub Advanced Security falls. If you raise it to 30%, Endor Labs draws level with Cycode for second place. The calculator prints the formula, so you can check any result by hand.

What would change our scores

A vendor page that states where a fix lands, that it is validated, or that a preview is now generally available would raise that vendor's score. Send corrections with a public link through the contact page.

What the weight does not say

A 20% weight is not a claim that fix agents save a given amount of time. We have no measurement of that, and vendor figures come from vendor workloads. The weight says that, for the question this site answers, an AppSec platform that can carry a finding all the way to a reviewed pull request is more useful than one that stops at the alert, other things being equal. Your own trial, measured as the fix acceptance rate on your code, is the number that should decide a purchase.