Corridor
commercialThe section your link pointed to isn't on Corridor's page any more, so we've brought you to the top.
Corridor injects codebase-specific guardrails into Cursor, Claude Code and Codex, scans changes before commit, reviews pull requests and enforces merge policy.
{
"tool": "analyzePlan",
"parameters": {
"plan": "Implement OAuth2 authorization code flow with PKCE for the user login endpoint, using the existing /auth routes in src/auth/",
"cwd": "/home/user/myproject",
"branch": "feature/oauth-login",
"commit_hash": "a3f9c12",
"has_unstaged_changes": true
}
}
initialize:
- name: Install Corridor CLI + pre-commit security scan
run: |
curl -fsSL https://app.corridor.dev/cli/devin-setup.sh | sh
curl -fsSL https://app.corridor.dev/cli/codex-setup.sh | sh
curl -fsSL https://app.corridor.dev/cli/claude-setup.sh | CORRIDOR_API_KEY=YOUR_KEY sh
curl -fsSL https://app.corridor.dev/cli/install.sh | CI=true sh
corridor scan --staged
initialize:
- name: Install Corridor CLI + pre-commit security scan
run: |
curl -fsSL https://app.corridor.dev/cli/devin-setup.sh | sh
curl -fsSL https://app.corridor.dev/cli/codex-setup.sh | sh
curl -fsSL https://app.corridor.dev/cli/claude-setup.sh | CORRIDOR_API_KEY=YOUR_KEY sh
Summary
Corridor is a commercial appsec platform that attaches a pre-commit security layer to AI coding agents such as Devin, Codex, Claude Code and Cursor Cloud Agents, installing a CLI and a git hook in each cloud session that scans staged changes and blocks commits containing security findings. Teams attach their own context to a project, in the form of named notes or uploaded documents, so guardrails judge code against organization-specific rules rather than generic patterns, and findings can be exported as SARIFSARIFStatic Analysis Results Interchange Format, a standard for sharing code-analysis findings, including locations and rule details. It lets scanners report results to a common review interface. for ingestion by tools like Wiz. It is aimed at application security teams supporting AI-assisted development rather than at developers working unassisted, and sits in the emerging space of security tooling built specifically around AI coding agents rather than traditional static analysis. Corridor launched in 2025, so there is little track record yet to judge its pace of development.
Corridor injects codebase-specific guardrails into Cursor, Claude Code and Codex, scans changes before commit, reviews pull requests and enforces merge policy.
How Corridor helps
Which security rules will an AI coding agent follow while it is generating code in this repo?
injects codebase-specific guardrails directly into the coding agent's context, so the rules it writes against reflect this project rather than a generic checklist
Does the code an agent just wrote introduce a vulnerability before it is ever committed?
analyzes the generated code in real time against those guardrails and flags issues at the point of creation, not after the fact
What security problems does a pull request introduce, and how do I fix them?
scans every pull request for security issues and posts findings with remediation guidance directly on the pull request
Is this pull request allowed to merge?
enforces merge policy across the pull request based on the security findings it turns up, so unresolved issues block the merge rather than passing through review
Languages
Command line
5 commands for Corridor, each with where it came from. This tool has no source analysis yet, so there is no option reference and no captured run beside them.
No command matches.
Score card
-
Shipping velocity releases a month, last 12 months
-
Documentation quality release-notes rubric, 0–100
-
Breaking-change discipline how rarely a release breaks users, and notice given
-
Maintenance risk quiet time against its own cadence, maintainers
-
Innovation & surface new capabilities, API and MCP surface
Five scores for Corridor, each built from the releases, notes and API history this site tracks — and, on Researcher and Business, where it stands among every measured tool in its category and how that has moved.
Score cards are part of every paid plan.
See plans → Already subscribed? Sign in →Trajectory
Blank means never measured; nothing here is a filled-in zero.
Peer standings are included with Researcher and Business. See how this tool ranks against its competitors, using data we don't publish anywhere else.
See plans →Each score is 0–100 on a published rubric, derived from data this site already shows. A dimension we cannot measure says so — it is never scored 0 and never enters a rank.
How this is scored
- Shipping velocity — releases a month over the last 12 months, on a log scale where 16 a month scores 100. Needs 3 releases in the window.
- Documentation quality — the release-notes rubric published on the analytics page, unchanged.
- Breaking-change discipline — the share of releases carrying a breaking change (none scores 100, half or more scores 0). Only projects that label breaking changes are measured: a clean record cannot be told from an unlabelled one.
- Maintenance risk — quiet time measured against the tool's own release cadence (quiet longer than 90 days and three typical gaps scores 0), plus the number of active maintainers and whether contributors are growing, where known. Higher is lower risk.
- Innovation & surface — new capabilities in the feature ledger this year, API and MCP operations added, and the share of commits that are features: the mean of whichever we hold.
- Community health (open-source tools only) — each is a direction, not a size: contributors this year against last, the bus factor now against a year ago, and issues closed per issue opened, where steady scores 50, doubled 100 and halved 0; plus the median time to a maintainer's first reply (an hour scores about 100, a month or more 0). A commercial card has no repository and carries none of the four.
- Documented delivery (commercial tools) — when a vendor's documented new capabilities have slowed against its own baseline, that counts against the overall standing as heavily as two low dimensions. Steady delivery, or too little history to judge, leaves the standing alone; it is never a sixth score.
- Open-source tools are scored on repository signals; commercial tools on their published changelog. Ranks compare tools within one category and one profile and need at least five measured peers; the overall standing needs three ranked dimensions. Best-in-breed or consolidator is a shape, not a quality, and is never scored.
Release-note detail over time
See how much detail Corridor puts in its release notes, quarter by quarter, and compare it with tracked tools in the same category. This history uses up to ten retained, reviewed notes per tool; sparse or blank older quarters may reflect that limit.
Checking release-note history…
Website history
corridor.dev, every changeCorridor's home and pricing pages and 1 more page as they looked each month from March 2025 to October 2026: 9 renders, 4 changes of tagline or palette. Step through them, play them, or put any two months side by side.
Website history is included with Researcher and Business.
See plans → Already subscribed? Sign in →← → or h l a month · Shift a year · [ ] previous / next change · Space play · 1 2 3 page · T whole page · C compare · F full size
← → or h l the right month · Shift the left · S swap · W wipe · T whole page · Esc back
Rebranding timeline
Dates bound when a change appeared between captures. Possible rebrands are AI suggestions; a redesign alone does not establish a rebrand.
Releases
14 entries
No entries match these filters.
- October 20263
- September 202611
Add the badge to your README
Maintain this project? The badge links readers straight to this page, so they can follow every release here.