The edits reviewers miss most are the ones outside the stated task: lockfiles, CI workflows, build scripts, unrelated tests and tool configuration files. Read the full file list of an AI fix before reading the fix itself, and ask why each extra file changed.
The anchoring problem
OWASP's guidance on secure coding with AI describes out-of-scope edits and review anchoring as the most common review failure mode in agentic coding. Agents often touch files beyond the requested change, and reviewers focused on the task miss them. Its advice is to review every file in an agent generated pull request, not to approve from the summary.
You can apply the same discipline to any AI proposed fix, whether it comes from a chat window or a bot.
Files to treat as sensitive
OWASP lists files that execute automatically during build, install, test or deploy as deserving heightened scrutiny. Examples it names include the scripts section of a package manifest (install and build hooks), GitHub Actions workflow files, other CI configuration, Dockerfiles, Makefiles, and Python build configuration.
| File type | Why it matters in a "security fix" | What to ask |
|---|---|---|
| Lockfile | New or changed packages enter the build | Does every new package trace to the fix? |
| CI workflow | Runs with pipeline credentials | Why would a code fix touch the pipeline? |
| Install and build hooks | Run code on every machine that installs | Was this line there before? |
| Dockerfile | Changes what ships | Does the change match the finding? |
| Tests | Define what counts as passing | Deleted, weakened or newly mocked? |
| AI tool rules files | Steer future generations | Who approved the new instructions? |
On rules files, OWASP says to treat them as security critical configuration and require explicit approval for changes, including changes made by the agent itself.
A three minute pass
- List changed files only. Mark each as in scope or out of scope for the finding.
- For each out of scope file, read the change. Look for network calls, new commands, new dependencies and permission changes.
- Check the lockfile diff for packages with no link to the fix.
- Only then read the actual fix.
If the answers to step two are not clear, ask for the out of scope edits to be split into a separate pull request.
Make the process help you
- Use CODEOWNERS so sensitive paths require a named reviewer. See CODEOWNERS for bot opened pull requests.
- Add a CI check that flags changes to workflow files, lockfiles and tests in pull requests labeled as fixes.
- Require re-approval when new commits arrive after review.
- Cap the size of fix pull requests. See fix PR size and scope guardrails.
Try it yourself
Click through it at your own pace, or open it full screen. Look at which checks block the merge and think about which of your red flags could be turned into a check like that.
Safeguard policies and gates can hold a pull request until required checks pass, and its autonomous remediation is off by default. A gate catches patterns you define, and a reviewer catches the rest.
Quick check
Is a lockfile only change safe to skim?
No. A lockfile controls what gets installed. Check that each new or changed package relates to the fix.
Should out of scope edits be rejected outright?
Not always, but split them into their own pull request so each can be reviewed on its own merits.
Sources
Last reviewed: 19 October 2026.
