◇ Could this help me?
Yes. An automatic review pass at the end of a turn and again at commit time catches the class of mistake that is easiest to miss, which is code the assistant wrote and a person skimmed. Treat the 30 to 40 percent figure as a self-reported internal number rather than independent evidence, and keep human review and proper security testing as the video itself recommends. General practice.
I want an automated security review layer running alongside code generation in Claude Code. Research the security-guidance plugin in Anthropic's claude-code-marketplace: who publishes it, what patterns it inspects, what it does at end of turn versus at commit or push, and what access it needs. Report those findings with a recommendation, and install it only after I explicitly approve. Once it is installed, run it against this codebase and show me an example of the kind of finding it produces.