CYBRARY Develop the judgment that AI-assisted coding demands.
Review pull requests, adjudicate noisy scanner findings and decide which AI-written patch actually fixes the flaw. Developers and reviewers are graded on the decision — and on how they proved it.
- 01Read the change
A real-looking pull request with context, tests and history.
- 02Weigh the automation
Scanner output and AI suggestions arrive with their own confidence.
- 03Decide
Approve, block or rewrite — and note the evidence.
- 04See the consequence
Emulated service behavior shows what your decision would have done; it is not an external deployment test.
Human adjudication of generated code
You and the AI reviewer are graded on separate cards, so rejecting a plausible but wrong patch scores well.
What you get with Forge
| Capability | Cybrary Forge | Secure Code Warrior |
|---|---|---|
| Pull-request review exercises | Yes | — |
| Scanner-finding adjudication | Yes | — |
| AI-generated patch review | Yes | Yes — trains developers to review AI code, plus commit-level governance |
| Graded evidence notes | Yes | — |
| Team assignment and progress | Yes | Yes — enterprise learning platform |
| Capabilities covered | 5 of 5 | 2 of 5 |
Forge capabilities verified in the product. Competitor documentation varies; absence from their materials is not treated as absence of functionality. "—" means we did not find it in their public materials; partial matches are described in their own words. Sources: Secure Code Warrior (Sep 2026).
Practice reviewing code, including AI-written code.
Try a review exercise, or talk to us about your developer program.