To test developer experience, pick one real team, run the tool in their pull requests for two weeks, and measure three things: added time, findings acted on versus suppressed, and a short survey that is identical across vendors. Tools that developers dislike get bypassed, whatever the demo showed.
Pick the pilot team carefully
Choose a team that ships often, uses your standard tools, and is willing to be honest. Avoid both the most enthusiastic and the most skeptical team. If you are comparing two tools, split by repository, not by developer, and rotate the order so one tool is not always second.
Tell the team what the pilot is, what you will measure, and that criticism is the point.
What to measure
Time added
Record how long the security check adds to a pull request, from push to result. Capture the median and the slowest cases. Add the time a developer spends reading and responding to a finding. A fast scan with confusing output can cost more than a slow, clear one.
Action rates
For each tool, count:
- Findings shown
- Findings fixed
- Findings suppressed, with the reasons
- Findings ignored with no action
A high ignore rate says the findings are not useful or not understood. A suppression with reason "not reachable" or "test code only" tells you what the tool is missing.
Friction events
Log every time a developer needed help from the security team to proceed. Each one is a cost that will scale with your headcount.
The survey
Keep it to five questions, rated 1 to 5, same for every tool:
- I understood why the tool flagged each issue.
- The suggested fix was useful.
- The tool slowed my work.
- I could suppress a false finding easily.
- I would keep this tool on my team.
Add one free text box: "What is the one thing you would change?" Read every answer.
Watch the workflow, not just the dashboard
Sit with two developers while they handle a finding. Do not coach. Note where they hesitate, which tabs they open, and when they give up. Five minutes of observation often shows what a survey misses, such as a link that goes to a page needing another login.
Check the experience in every place the tool appears: the pull request comment, the editor if there is an extension, the command line, and email or chat alerts. Inconsistent explanations between surfaces confuse people.
Interpret the results
Compare against the success criteria you wrote earlier, for example "median added time under three minutes" and "most developers say they would keep it." Treat a split result honestly. If developers love the explanations but hate the delay, that is a tradeoff to discuss with the vendor, not average away.
Ask the vendor how they would fix the top complaint, then see if they do so before the trial ends. Responsiveness to real feedback predicts the support you will get later.
Safeguard offers command line, IDE, and pull request surfaces. Whichever product you test, run the pilot on each surface your team will really use.
Quick check
How many developers are enough for a pilot?
A single team of five to ten can show clear patterns. More helps, but only if you can support them without slowing the trial.
Should security staff help during the pilot?
Only to unblock. Log each help request, since it is a signal of friction.
Last reviewed: 19 October 2026.
