From finding to fixed, without the archaeology
The hard part of fixing a security bug usually isn't writing the fix. It's working out what the scanner is even talking about. “Insecure direct object reference at line 47” is technically a finding. It's not a fix.
By the time an engineer has traced what's actually wrong, checked whether it's exploitable in their codebase, and figured out the right patch, they've spent 45 minutes on something that should have been 5.
Kolega is built to compress that. Every finding includes the context to act on it immediately — and when the fix is mechanical, you can skip writing it yourself.
What a Kolega finding actually contains
When Kolega flags a vulnerability, you don't get a one-line alert. Every finding includes:
The exact location
File, line, function. Not “somewhere in your auth flow.”
The data flow that produced it
Where untrusted data enters, what touches it, where it ends up exploitable. So you can see the whole path, not just the symptom.
Why it's exploitable in your code
Not a generic CVE description. The specific reason this code, in this codebase, is broken. (E.g. “the user object is authenticated but the query doesn’t filter by user.id, so any logged-in user can read any record.”)
The fix
A suggested patch you can apply directly. For findings where the fix is mechanical, an autofix PR option that does the work for you.
A regression test
When Kolega opens an autofix PR, it includes a test that proves the fix closes the vulnerability. So you don't just have to trust that the patch worked.
Autofix PRs that you'd actually merge
Most “autofix” features in security tools produce patches that need to be heavily edited before they're mergeable. The fix changes the wrong thing, breaks unrelated tests, or applies in a way that doesn't match your codebase's conventions.
Kolega's autofix is built to produce PRs that look like ones your team would write themselves:
- The patch matches your codebase's style and conventions
- The change is scoped to the minimum needed to close the vulnerability
- A regression test is included that fails before the patch and passes after
- The PR description explains what changed and why
The result: engineers review the autofix PR the same way they'd review a teammate's. Most go through with a one-line approval.
getOrder — filter by authenticated userFinding
The getOrder endpoint authenticates the user but the database query doesn't filter by user.id. Any logged-in user can read any record by changing the URL.
Patch · app/routes/orders.py
+1 −1
@app.get("/orders/{order_id}") def get_order(order_id: int, user: User = Depends(get_current_user)):- return db.query(Order).filter(Order.id == order_id).first()+ return db.query(Order).filter(Order.id == order_id, Order.user_id == user.id).first()Regression test · tests/test_orders_bola.py (new file)
def test_user_cannot_read_other_users_order(client, alice, bob): order = create_order(owner=alice) response = client.get(f"/orders/{order.id}", auth=bob) assert response.status_code == 404Opened by kolega-bot · ready for review
Tests passingExample autofix PR · the finding, the patch, and the regression test in one review.
What this changes for your team
The teams running Kolega see this play out in three ways.
Less archaeology per finding
Engineers don't spend 30+ minutes working out what each finding means. The context is in the finding itself.
More fixes shipped same-day
When the finding is clear and the fix is offered, the time between “scanner found this” and “PR merged that fixes it” collapses. Findings that would have sat in a backlog for weeks get closed within hours.
Less ignored backlog
When fixes feel hard, backlogs grow. When fixes feel obvious, they get closed. Your unresolved findings stop being a number that only goes up.
Where you still want a human in the loop
We're honest about this. Not every finding should be autofixed.
Logic vulnerabilities that require business context
Kolega flags the data flow problem, but the right fix depends on what the business intent of the code was. Engineers need to make that call.
Architectural vulnerabilities
A missing rate limit, a broken auth flow, a permissions model that needs redesigning. These aren't patches, they're decisions.
Anything that touches production data handling
Even when the technical fix is obvious, you want a human to sign off.
Autofix is for the cases where the fix is mechanical and unambiguous. Everything else is surfaced clearly so the right person can make the right call quickly.
See it on your own code
Open a Kolega scan on a real repo, look at the findings, see how much context you get. The difference between “alert” and “actionable finding” is the whole pitch.
No credit card required. 7-day Pro trial. Drops to a free tier afterwards.