A regulatory requirement translated into a concrete setting in your system — and into evidence that shows it.
The engineer and the auditor look at the same thing — and understand the same thing.
This is the starting point in many companies that ship fast and are regulated.
A regulation speaks in general terms: risk management, supplier control, vulnerability reporting. It does not say what to set in your repository. Before an audit or a client questionnaire the team collects evidence by hand, screenshot after screenshot.
We define the scope after an assessment — starting with the element that lowers your risk fastest.
A regulation translated into a concrete setting.
We map each requirement to a concrete setting in your system that fulfills it — so that both an engineer and an auditor understand it. What is missing we implement, instead of leaving a list of recommendations to close on your own. We automate evidence collection, so the material is produced with every release, not the night before an audit. We also prepare ready answers to client security questionnaires, because those questions will come anyway — the only question is whether before signing the contract or after.
Each stage leaves you with a concrete result, not meeting notes.
We map each requirement to the concrete setting that fulfills it.
ResultA map from requirement to setting in your system, readable by engineers and auditors
What is missing we implement — we do not leave a list of recommendations.
ResultMissing settings implemented, not a list of recommendations
The material is produced with every release, not the night before an audit.
ResultEvidence collected automatically with every release
Ready answers to the questions that will come anyway before signing.
ResultA library of answers to client security questionnaires
Implementation ends with working configuration and evidence, not a report full of recommendations. Here is an example.
# evidence saved with every release
- name: Export branch protection
run: |
gh api "repos/$GITHUB_REPOSITORY/branches/main/protection" \
> evidence/branch-protection.json
- name: Archive under the release tag
run: cp -r evidence "archive/$GITHUB_REF_NAME"Material for the auditor builds itself, not the night before the audit.
| Requirement | Setting |
|---|---|
| ISO/IEC 27001:2022, A.8.32 — change management | branch protection and required review |
| NIS2 Art. 21(2)(e) — security in development and maintenance | dependency scan on every change |
| SOC 2 CC6.1 — logical access | SSO and MFA on the repository |
Every requirement points to the place that implements it.
The questionnaire stops blocking the contract signature.
Illustration. We choose scope and tools after the assessment. We cover the technical layer. Full compliance also requires organisational and legal measures and does not replace a formal audit.
We define the scope after a call and an assessment. Smaller engagements close in a few weeks; larger ones we split into stages, so the result is visible after the first.
Usually not to all of it. In most cases access to the build pipeline configuration and organization settings is enough. We define the scope in writing before we start.
Yes, but not full time. We need contact with someone who knows the system, and a review of our changes. The rest is on us.
We plug into what already works for you. Replacing a tool is the most expensive and least often necessary way to improve security.
No. We work with standards and tools your team knows or will quickly learn — not a proprietary method only we understand. Everything is documented and handed over.
We wire controls so they run in the background. If one starts blocking work, we tune it or move it to a different point in the process.