Collect developer feedback on security tools at the moment of friction: a one click "this is wrong" with a reason on each finding, a single named channel, and a monthly review that publishes what changed. Surveys help, but in the moment signals are more specific and more honest.
Why surveys alone fall short
Surveys capture how people remember an experience. They are good for broad sentiment and bad for detail. A developer who dismissed 30 findings last month will not recall which rules annoyed them. If you want a survey too, see five questions for a SAST pilot.
Build four channels
1. Dismissal reasons. When someone dismisses a finding, ask for a reason from a short list: wrong, not reachable, test code, accepted risk, other. This is your best dataset. It is free, specific and tied to a rule.
2. A report button. A single link on each finding: "Report a problem with this result." It should open a prefilled form or issue with the rule, file and tool version. If it takes more than a few seconds, people will not use it.
3. A named channel. One place, with a human owner who replies within a stated time. Pin the expectations at the top.
4. A recurring session. Office hours or a monthly review, where the owner shows data and takes questions. Our post on security office hours has a format.
What to log
| Field | Why |
|---|---|
| Rule or check name | Find noisy rules |
| Repository and team | Spot patterns by stack |
| Reason category | Quantify causes |
| Free text | Capture surprises |
| Tool version | Match problems to releases |
Do not log more personal data than needed. Team level analysis is usually enough.
Turn feedback into action
- Triage weekly. Sort by rule and count. A rule that appears in many reports is the first fix.
- Reply to every report. Even "we reviewed it and the rule is right, here is why" shows people they were heard.
- Ship a change log. Share what was tuned, retired or fixed. See release notes for rule changes.
- Close the loop in the tool. If a finding was reported as wrong and you fix the rule, tell the reporter.
Common mistakes
Silence after submission. The fastest way to end feedback is to ignore it.
Counting complaints as noise. Treat each report as a data point, including angry ones.
Asking only the champions. Include people who rarely use the tool. They are the ones who gave up.
Collecting more than you can act on. Pick the channels you can staff.
Measure the program
Track the share of dismissals with a reason, time to first reply, and the number of rules changed because of feedback. If the number of rule changes is zero for several months, either the rules are perfect or the channel is not working. Check which.
Respect the signal, not the volume
A flood of reports on one rule is a gift. It tells you where to spend the next hour.
Safeguard supports policies and gates you can tune, and the free scan at gold.safeguard.sh/scan gives a team something concrete to react to in a first feedback session.
Quick check
Should dismissal reasons be mandatory?
Yes for suppressions that hide a finding, with a short list so it takes seconds. Free text can stay optional.
How fast should we reply?
State a target such as one working day for a first reply, and keep it. The exact number matters less than meeting it.
Last reviewed: 19 October 2026.
