AI Tool Assessment & Selection
This section provides a structured evaluation framework for AI-assisted development tools. With AI co-authored code showing 1.7x more issues and a 2.74x higher vulnerability rate than human-authored code, tool selection is a critical risk management decision. The assessment framework covers code quality output, security posture, licensing considerations, integration capabilities, and alignment with existing development workflows. All tool assessments MUST be completed during Phase 1: Foundation before any AI tools are deployed to development teams.
Evaluation Criteria
Every candidate AI development tool MUST be evaluated across five primary dimensions. Each dimension carries a weighted score that reflects its importance to enterprise adoption.
1. Security Posture (Weight: 30%)
Security is the highest-weighted criterion, consistent with Pillar 2: Security-First AI.
| Criterion | Description | Scoring |
|---|---|---|
| Data residency | Where is prompt/code data processed and stored? | 5 = On-premises/private cloud; 3 = Regional cloud with guarantees; 1 = Unknown/shared infrastructure |
| Data retention | How long does the vendor retain prompts and code? | 5 = No retention; 3 = <30 days with opt-out; 1 = Indefinite or used for training |
| Encryption | Encryption in transit and at rest | 5 = TLS 1.3 + AES-256 at rest; 3 = TLS 1.2 + encryption at rest; 1 = Partial or no encryption |
| SOC 2/ISO 27001 | Vendor security certifications | 5 = SOC 2 Type II + ISO 27001; 3 = SOC 2 Type I; 1 = No certification |
| Vulnerability history | Vendor's track record of security incidents | 5 = No incidents; 3 = Incidents with rapid response; 1 = Repeated incidents or poor response |
| Access controls | Support for SSO, RBAC, and audit logging | 5 = Full SSO/RBAC/audit; 3 = Partial support; 1 = Basic authentication only |
2. Code Quality Output (Weight: 25%)
| Criterion | Description | Scoring |
|---|---|---|
| Correctness | Percentage of generated code that passes functional tests without modification | 5 = >80%; 3 = 60-80%; 1 = <60% |
| Security of output | Rate of vulnerabilities in generated code (measured via SAST) | 5 = <2% of suggestions flagged; 3 = 2-5%; 1 = >5% |
| Code style compliance | Adherence to organization's coding standards | 5 = Configurable and compliant; 3 = Partially configurable; 1 = Not configurable |
| Test generation | Quality of auto-generated tests | 5 = Meaningful tests with edge cases; 3 = Basic happy-path tests; 1 = No test generation |
| Language/framework coverage | Support for the organization's technology stack | 5 = Full stack coverage; 3 = Primary languages covered; 1 = Limited coverage |
3. Integration Capabilities (Weight: 20%)
| Criterion | Description | Scoring |
|---|---|---|
| IDE support | Compatible IDEs and editors | 5 = All major IDEs; 3 = 2-3 IDEs; 1 = Single IDE only |
| CI/CD integration | Ability to integrate into build pipelines | 5 = Native CI/CD plugins; 3 = API-based integration; 1 = No CI/CD support |
| VCS integration | Integration with version control systems | 5 = Deep VCS integration (PR reviews, etc.); 3 = Basic integration; 1 = None |
| API availability | Programmatic access for custom workflows | 5 = Full REST/GraphQL API; 3 = Limited API; 1 = No API |
| Configuration management | Ability to enforce organization-wide settings | 5 = Centralized policy management; 3 = Per-user configuration; 1 = No central management |
4. Total Cost of Ownership (Weight: 15%)
| Criterion | Description | Scoring |
|---|---|---|
| Per-seat licensing | Monthly/annual per-developer cost | 5 = <$20/dev/month; 3 = $20-50/dev/month; 1 = >$50/dev/month |
| Volume discounts | Enterprise pricing available | 5 = Significant volume discounts; 3 = Moderate; 1 = No discounts |
| Infrastructure costs | Additional infrastructure required | 5 = SaaS (no infra); 3 = Minimal infra; 1 = Significant infra investment |
| Training costs | Effort to train developers | 5 = Intuitive, minimal training; 3 = Moderate training needed; 1 = Extensive training required |
| Hidden costs | Token limits, overage charges, premium features | 5 = All-inclusive pricing; 3 = Predictable usage tiers; 1 = Unpredictable costs |
5. Vendor Support & Viability (Weight: 10%)
| Criterion | Description | Scoring |
|---|---|---|
| SLA guarantees | Uptime and response time commitments | 5 = 99.9%+ with enterprise SLA; 3 = 99.5% with basic SLA; 1 = No SLA |
| Support channels | Available support channels and response times | 5 = Dedicated CSM + 24/7 support; 3 = Business hours support; 1 = Community only |
| Vendor viability | Financial stability and market position | 5 = Established with strong funding; 3 = Growing with adequate funding; 1 = Early stage or uncertain |
| Roadmap alignment | Product roadmap fits organizational needs | 5 = Strong alignment; 3 = Moderate alignment; 1 = Misaligned |
| Exit strategy | Data portability and contract flexibility | 5 = Easy exit, no lock-in; 3 = Moderate lock-in; 1 = Significant lock-in |
Scoring Rubric
Each criterion is scored on a 1-5 scale:
- 5 (Excellent) — Fully meets or exceeds enterprise requirements
- 4 (Good) — Meets requirements with minor gaps
- 3 (Acceptable) — Meets minimum requirements; some risk accepted
- 2 (Below Standard) — Significant gaps; remediation plan required
- 1 (Unacceptable) — Fails to meet minimum requirements
Minimum thresholds: A tool MUST score at least 3 on every Security Posture criterion to be considered. Any tool scoring 1 on data residency or data retention SHALL be automatically disqualified.
Comparison Methodology
The assessment MUST follow this structured process:
- Longlist identification — Identify 4-6 candidate tools through market research, analyst reports, and peer recommendations.
- Security pre-screening — Apply Security Posture minimum thresholds. Eliminate tools that fail pre-screening. This step MUST involve the Security Lead.
- Structured evaluation — Score all remaining tools across all five dimensions. Each criterion MUST be scored independently by at least two evaluators.
- Hands-on proof of concept — The top 2-3 tools MUST undergo a 2-week proof of concept with pilot team developers using realistic code samples.
- Score reconciliation — Evaluators reconcile scores, resolve disagreements, and compute weighted totals.
- Recommendation and approval — Present the assessment report with a recommended tool and justification to CISO and CTO for approval.
Decision Matrix Template
| Tool | Security (30%) | Quality (25%) | Integration (20%) | Cost (15%) | Support (10%) | Weighted Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tool A | 4.2 (1.26) | 3.8 (0.95) | 4.0 (0.80) | 3.5 (0.53) | 4.0 (0.40) | 3.94 |
| Tool B | 3.5 (1.05) | 4.2 (1.05) | 3.5 (0.70) | 4.0 (0.60) | 3.0 (0.30) | 3.70 |
| Tool C | 4.5 (1.35) | 3.5 (0.88) | 3.0 (0.60) | 2.5 (0.38) | 4.5 (0.45) | 3.66 |
Assessment Report Requirements
The final AI Tool Assessment Report MUST include:
- Executive summary with recommended tool and rationale
- Evaluation methodology describing the process followed
- Individual tool scorecards with criterion-level scores and evidence
- Proof of concept findings including developer feedback and measured quality metrics
- Risk assessment for the recommended tool, including identified risks and mitigations
- Cost analysis with 3-year total cost of ownership projection
- Implementation plan including rollout timeline and configuration requirements
The completed assessment report SHALL be reviewed and approved before proceeding with tool deployment. This assessment feeds directly into Baseline Security Policies for configuration requirements and Developer Training for curriculum development.