Notifications
Clear all
Topic starter
02/08/2026 12:27 pm
TL;DR: Security tools often find vulnerabilities too late, miss project-specific code patterns, and fail to give developers fixes they can act on, according to Semgrep. The real shift is from detection-only scanning to fast, relevant, workflow-embedded guidance that improves fix rates and trust.
NHIMG editorial — based on content published by Semgrep: rule customization for developer-friendly security tools
By the numbers:
- Only 5.7% of organisations have full visibility into their service accounts.
Questions worth separating out
Q: How should security teams make offensive security findings actionable?
A: They should connect each finding to ownership, context, remediation tracking, and retesting.
Q: Why do customised rules improve developer adoption of security tools?
A: Customised rules improve adoption because they reduce irrelevant noise and reflect the realities of local code, libraries, and workflows.
Q: What breaks when security tools are too generic for the code they scan?
A: Generic tools often miss project-specific unsafe patterns and overload developers with findings they cannot easily fix.
Practitioner guidance
- Implement rule customization for internal code paths Encode in-house libraries, approved arguments, and banned patterns so scanners understand your actual application architecture rather than a generic baseline.
- Push remediation into pull requests and IDEs Return findings where developers already work, including GitHub PR comments or IDE feedback, so security guidance becomes part of review and editing rather than a separate queue.
- Measure effective false positives instead of raw findings Track how many alerts developers can actually act on and how often they accept the recommended fix, because alert volume alone does not measure control quality.
What's in the full article
Semgrep's full post covers the implementation detail this analysis intentionally leaves for the source:
- Rule-writing examples across API, custom query language, and YAML-based approaches for tailoring detections.
- Concrete examples of autofix and developer workflow integration that reduce remediation friction.
- Practical comparisons of customization approaches for teams deciding how much rule logic to encode.
- The article's original code snippets and tool-specific syntax for building custom rules.
👉 Read Semgrep's guide to rule customization for developer-friendly security →
Rule customization and developer trust: what security teams should change?
Explore further
02/08/2026 1:26 pm
Rule customization is a governance control, not a developer convenience. The article shows that generic security findings lose force when they ignore codebase context, internal libraries, and local remediation paths. That makes customization part of control design, not a nice-to-have feature. For application security programmes, the governing question is whether the feedback loop changes developer behaviour at the point of code creation.
A question worth separating out:
Q: How can organisations measure whether AppSec controls are working?
A: They should look for fewer repeat vulnerabilities, lower false-positive burden, faster developer adoption, and measurable reduction in high-risk bug classes. A healthy AppSec programme changes the shape of risk, not just the number of alerts. If findings remain high but exposure does not fall, the control model is not scaling.
👉 Read our full editorial: Rule customization is the missing factor in developer-friendly security
