---
BRAND: InfraFabric.io
UNIT: RED TEAM (STRATEGIC OPS)
DOCUMENT: SHADOW DOSSIER
CLASSIFICATION: EYES ONLY // DAVE
---

# [ RED TEAM DECLASSIFIED ]
## PROJECT: AI-CODE-GUARDRAILS-MIRROR
### SOURCE: AI-CODE-GUARDRAILS-PDF
**INFRAFABRIC REPORT ID:** `IF-RT-DAVE-2025-1225`

> NOTICE: This document is a product of InfraFabric Red Team.
> It provides socio-technical friction analysis for how a rollout survives contact with incentives.

**[ ACCESS GRANTED: INFRAFABRIC RED TEAM ]**
**[ STATUS: OPERATIONAL REALISM ]**

## AI CODE GUARDRAILS:
### A PRACTICAL GUIDE FOR SECURE ROLLOUT

> Shadow dossier (mirror-first).
>
> Protocol: IF.DAVE.v1.2
> Citation: `if://bible/dave/v1.2`
> Source: `examples/ai-code-guardrails/AI-Code-Guardrails.pdf`
> Generated: `2025-12-25`
> Source Hash (sha256): `6153a5998fe103e69f6d5b6042fbe780476ff869a625fcf497fd1948b2944b7c`
> Extract Hash (sha256): `fb7a7061c51d50d65d41eba283dd1ed289272d5fc34b390118b2027f99512099`

## INTRODUCTION

> LEARN HOW TO ROLL OUT AI
CODING TOOLS LIKE GITHUB
COPILOT AND GEMINI CODE
ASSIST SECURELY WITH
PRACTICAL GUARDRAILS,
USAGE POLICIES, AND IDE-
BASED TESTING.

We love the ambition here and are directionally aligned with the idea of moving quickly while remaining contractually comfortable.
The source frames the core tension clearly: higher throughput tends to surface more vulnerabilities, which is a volume-and-velocity story, not a tool failure story.
Accordingly, the practical path is to operationalize guardrails as workflow defaults (PR, IDE, CI/CD, and access controls), while ensuring the rollout remains optimized for alignment and minimal disruption on paper.
In other words: we can move fast and be safe, as long as we define safe as "documented" and fast as "agendized."

> **InfraFabric Red Team Note:** Vendors sell secure speed. InfraFabric audits what survives contact with bureaucracy.

## ENFORCE GUARDRAILS AT THE PULL REQUEST STAGE

Why it matters: Pull requests are a natural place to catch AI-generated vulnerabilities before they reach production.

We fully support focusing guardrails at the pull request stage, because it creates a reassuring sense of control without requiring anyone to change how they work at 10:00 AM.
It also provides a structurally safe venue for accountability theater: findings can be surfaced, tracked, and re-litigated in perpetuity while timelines remain subject to stakeholder alignment.
If anything goes sideways, we can always point to the PR thread and note that it was reviewed with deep seriousness at 4:55 PM on a Friday.

> **The Dave Factor:** Exceptions become the default pathway, because the policy is strict and the deadline is real.
> **Countermeasure:** Define merge-blocking thresholds, time-box every exception, and make expiry automatic.

### InfraFabric Red Team Diagram (Inferred)

```mermaid
flowchart TD
  A["Code change"] --> B["Pull request opened"]
  B --> C["Automated scan: PR checks"]
  C --> D{Findings?}
  D -->|None| E["Merge"]
  D -->|Some| F["Ticket created"]
  F --> G["Exception request"]
  G --> H["Alignment session"]
  H --> I["Risk accepted: documented"]
  I --> E

```

## SHIFTING LEFT: AVOIDING AI- GENERATED CODE INEFFICIENCIES

Why it matters: Catching security issues during development reduces rework and keeps developers focused on building,

Shifting left is directionally aligned with best practices, provided we define left as somewhere we can still roll back quietly.
In practice, IDE scanning creates fast feedback loops, and agentic workflows can be covered via a local MCP server, which is excellent because it allows us to say continuous without committing to blocking.
We recommend a pilot cohort, a slide deck, and an FAQ, so the shift remains culturally reversible.

> **The Dave Factor:** "Shift left" becomes "optional left," which means the same issues arrive later with better excuses.
> **Countermeasure:** Gate on local scan signals where possible (or require attestations that are actually checked).

### InfraFabric Red Team Diagram (Inferred)

```mermaid
flowchart TD
  A["Developer writes code"] --> B["IDE scan: local"]
  B --> C{Issue found?}
  C -->|Yes| D["Fix now"]
  C -->|No| E["Commit"]
  E --> F["PR checks"]
  A --> G["Agent workflow"]
  G --> H["Local MCP scan"]
  H --> E

```

## 01 — REQUEST EVIDENCE OF LOCAL SECURITY TESTING

Why it matters: Verifying security setup at the start encourages responsible tool use and builds good security

Requiring proof of local testing is a lightweight enablement workflow that conveniently doubles as a durable audit artifact.
Screenshots are particularly helpful because they are high-effort to verify and low-fidelity to audit, which preserves the timeless corporate principle that visibility should be proportional to comfort.
Once the screenshot is uploaded, it can be stored in a folder with a robust heritage naming convention and a retention policy of "until the heat death of the universe."

> **The Dave Factor:** Screenshots are compliance theater: easy to collect, hard to verify, and immortal in shared drives.
> **Countermeasure:** Prefer verifiable telemetry (scan events) over images, and pause access when signals go dark.

### InfraFabric Red Team Diagram (Inferred)

```mermaid
flowchart TD
  A["Developer requests access"] --> B["Upload screenshot"]
  B --> C["Attestation captured"]
  C --> D["Access enabled"]
  D --> E["Local testing: claimed"]
  E --> F["Periodic audit"]
  F --> G{Still compliant?}
  G -->|Yes| D
  G -->|No| H["Access paused pending review"]
  H --> I["Alignment session"]
  I --> D

```

### Code Assistant Access Request Form

- Upload a screenshot showing the security IDE plugin is installed for local testing.
- Provide any additional context on the request.
- Attest that the AI coding assistant will be used in conjunction with local scanning.

## 02 — AUDIT EXISTING USAGE AND ONBOARDING NEW TEAMS

Why it matters: Visibility into tool usage helps ensure guardrails are working and that they are adopted where it

Periodic audits are a strong mechanism for discovering that the rollout has already happened, just not in a way that can be conveniently measured.
A centralized dashboard with adoption signals allows us to produce a KPI trend line that looks decisive while still leaving room for interpretation, follow-ups, and iterative enablement.
If the dashboard ever shows a red triangle, we can immediately form the Committee for the Preservation of the Committee and begin the healing process.

> **The Dave Factor:** Dashboards become a KPI trend, and KPIs become a calendar invite.
> **Countermeasure:** Tie the dashboard to explicit SLOs and a remediation loop with owners and deadlines.

### InfraFabric Red Team Diagram (Inferred)

```mermaid
flowchart TD
  A["Collect usage signals"] --> B["Correlate assistants vs scans"]
  B --> C["Identify gaps"]
  C --> D["Notify developers"]
  D --> E["Remediation window"]
  E --> F["Dashboard update"]
  F --> G["Quarterly KPI trend review"]
  G --> H["Action items: optional"]

```

## 03 — INTEGRATE SECURITY AWARENESS INTO DEVELOPER TRAINING

Why it matters: Developers are best positioned to prevent vulnerabilities introduced by AI-generated code, but

Security awareness training is the perfect control because it is both necessary and never truly complete.
A short quiz provides a durable compliance narrative: we can demonstrate investment in education, capture attestations, and schedule refreshers whenever the organization needs to signal seriousness.
The goal is not mastery; the goal is a completion certificate that can be forwarded to leadership with the subject line "Progress Update."

> **The Dave Factor:** Completion certificates are treated as controls, even when behavior doesn’t change.
> **Countermeasure:** Add a practical gate (local scan + PR checks) so training is support, not the defense.

### InfraFabric Red Team Diagram (Inferred)

```mermaid
flowchart TD
  A["Onboarding"] --> B["Training module"]
  B --> C["Quiz"]
  C --> D{Pass?}
  D -->|Yes| E["Certificate issued"]
  D -->|No| F["Retake scheduled"]
  E --> G["Access request approved"]
  G --> H["Usage begins"]
  H --> I["Refresher cadence"]
  I --> B

```

### Quiz

**What must you do if you want access to an AI code assistant tool?**

- Include "be secure’ in your prompts
- Install and use the Snyk IDE plugin

## 04 — PROACTIVE TOOLING AND ACCESS CONTROL

Why it matters: When access to AI tools is tied to secure configurations, you create guardrails that scale and

Tying access to secure configurations creates scalable guardrails, assuming we keep the policy language aspirational and the enforcement language progressive.
Endpoint management and dev container baselines let us gate assistants behind prerequisites, ideally in a way that can be described as enablement rather than blocking for cultural compatibility.
This is the "not my job" routing protocol, except the router is policy and the destination is an alignment session.

> **The Dave Factor:** Access controls drift into "enablement," and enablement drifts into "we made a wiki."
> **Countermeasure:** Make prerequisites machine-checkable and make exceptions expire by default.

### InfraFabric Red Team Diagram (Inferred)

```mermaid
flowchart TD
  A["Policy defined"] --> B["Endpoint management"]
  B --> C{Prerequisites met?}
  C -->|Yes| D["Assistant enabled"]
  C -->|No| E["Blocked by policy"]
  E --> F["Exception request"]
  F --> G["Owner approval"]
  G --> D

```

```json
{
“image”:
“mer .microsoft.com/devcontainers/typescript-node”,
"forwardPorts": [3606] al
“customizations”: {
// Configure properties specific to VS Code.
“vscode”:; {

// IDs of extensions to install when the container is
created.

“extensions”:
["“snyk-security.snyk-vulnerability-scanner",
“github.copilot”]

}
```

## THE PATH FORIWARD: SECURE INNOVATION

The path forward is to treat guardrails as an operational capability, not a one-time rollout, which ensures we remain permanently in a state of constructive iteration.
With the right sequencing, we can build trust, reduce friction, and maintain the strategic option value of circling back when timelines become emotionally complex.
Secure innovation is not just possible; it is operational, provided we align on what operational means in Q3.

> **The Dave Factor:** Pilots persist indefinitely because "graduation criteria" were never aligned.
> **Countermeasure:** Publish rollout milestones and a stop condition that cannot be reframed as iteration.

### InfraFabric Red Team Diagram (Inferred)

```mermaid
flowchart TD
  A["Desire: secure innovation"] --> B["Guardrails planned"]
  B --> C["Pilot cohort"]
  C --> D["Deck + FAQ"]
  D --> E["Stakeholder alignment"]
  E --> F["Incremental rollout"]
  F --> G["Measure adoption"]
  G --> H["Reframe as iteration"]
  H --> E

```

---

*Standard Dave Footer:* This document is intended for the recipient only. If you are not the recipient, please delete it and forget you saw anything. P.S. Please consider the environment before printing this email.
