Security remediation · Claude Mythos

Mythos finds the bugs. Now ship the fix.

Claude Mythos has shown what frontier models can find in your code. Finding bugs is the simple part. Acting on them is where the complexity lives, and that's still on you and your team.

Discovery is the easy part

Mythos showed what AI can find: thousands of critical security bugs in weeks. Fixing them means understanding what each one touches, and that's still complex work.

AI finding is here

Mythos Preview surfaced 10,000+ high or critical findings across roughly 50 partner orgs in a month. Cloudflare alone: 2,000 bugs, 400 critical, with accuracy exceeding human testers. The discovery side of the problem is crossing over.

Every fix is a decision tree

A critical patch means knowing what it touches: business rules, dependencies, threading, compliance, who depends on the soft-fail behavior. The wrong order breaks the audit trail. The wrong refactor breaks the SLA. This is where remediation lives, and it isn't a speed problem.

The wrong fix ships another bug

Auto-fixes look complete and break things quietly. A generic patch that respects no business rules creates a regression that wasn't there before. The fastest patch is the one that didn't ship a CVE-for-a-CVE.

Why the gap exists

Patching is an understanding problem

A Mythos finding tells you where the bug is. Acting on it needs the blast radius, the business logic it touches, and the tribal knowledge of what's safe to change. Static analysis alone misses intent. AI alone hallucinates. Senior engineers alone don't scale. We run all three.

Layer 01

Deterministic analysis

Our proprietary engine maps the blast radius of every finding. What depends on what, which callers are direct, which are indirect, which paths touch business logic. The factual base layer your remediation team works from.

Blast radius
CVE-2026-5194CRITICAL · wolfSSL
└─ acme.platform/security
   ├─ auth/CertValidatorDIRECT
   ├─ payments/TLSChannelDIRECT
   ├─ comm/ServiceMesh12 callers
   └─ admin/ManagementAPIINDIRECT
47 affected paths · 312 indirect callers · 8 business rules
Layer 02

AI for scale

Anchored in the blast-radius map, our AI agents extract the constraints, contracts, and rules every patch has to respect. The context your remediation team and your AI tools work from. Indexed, queryable, ground truth.

Patch context
Context for: CVE-2026-5194 remediation
Service contracts in scope
├─ payments/TLSChannelasync only · 50→200 TPS
├─ comm/ServiceMeshsoft-fail flag required
Business rules
├─ rule.security.staging_softfail
├─ rule.compliance.tls_version
Tribal knowledge
├─ "Staging certs must still validate"Anna, 2024
└─ "Don't break the fallback chain"Tom, 2023
Layer 03

SMEs and AI experts

Senior engineers validate every patch in context. They catch the cases where the "right fix" breaks a threading model, an SLA, or a compliance rule. The reason your incident response doesn't ship a CVE-for-a-CVE.

Patch review
Senior platform engineer
payments/TLSChannel · STA threading

Auto-fix introduces a synchronous handshake on the payment hot path. Tested at 50 TPS, fails at 200. Replacing with async validation and a parity test against the production processor contract. Locked.

Senior platform engineer
comm/ServiceMesh · 12 callers

Six of the twelve callers depend on the old validation returning a soft-fail for staging certs. Patch must keep the staging-mode flag. Surfaced to the agent as rule.security.staging_softfail.

Engagement model

Build the understanding layer

Four stages. Fixed price per stage. Commit one step at a time, with validation evidence at every one.

01

Assessment

Snapshot of your codebase and remediation readiness. Dependency inventory, third-party surface, patching maturity audit. Scoped plan, risks, and success criteria.

What you receive
  • Codebase snapshot and remediation audit
  • Scoped plan
  • Risk register
  • Locked success criteria
02

Specification

Extract the business logic, critical flows, and validation rules patches have to respect. Documented, queryable, with parity test specs locked.

What you receive
  • Architecture and dependency maps
  • Extracted business logic
  • Documented critical flows
  • Parity test specifications
03

Modernization

Build the Knowledge Base. Index the codebase, capture the tribal knowledge, expose it via MCP. The understanding layer your remediation team and AI tools work from.

What you receive
  • Validated Knowledge Base
  • Blast-radius analysis per finding
  • MCP server and endpoints
  • Integrations with your AI tools
04

Enablement

Keep patching safely as your code evolves. Parity test suite, remediation playbooks, training, and a Knowledge Base your tools and SOC can query, handed off to your team.

What you receive
  • Parity test suite
  • Remediation playbooks
  • Team training
  • Queryable Knowledge Base
What you get

A workspace, not a stack of files

Every deliverable lives in one place. Yours to keep, queryable by your tools and your SOC.

Delivered change

  • Validated Knowledge Base
  • MCP server and endpoints
  • Integrations with your AI tools
  • Audit-ready context for disclosure

System understanding

  • Architecture and dependency maps
  • Blast-radius analysis per finding
  • Extracted business logic
  • Critical flow documentation
  • Queryable by MCP

Enablement assets

  • Parity test suite
  • Remediation playbooks
  • Team training
  • Queryable Knowledge Base

Get the understanding layer your remediation team will need

Get in touch with our team. We'll talk through your codebase and what an understanding layer for your remediation team and AI tools looks like.

Get in touch