<rss version="2.0" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>Hacker News: gaal_dornick</title><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=gaal_dornick</link><description>Hacker News RSS</description><docs>https://hnrss.org/</docs><generator>hnrss v2.1.1</generator><lastBuildDate>Tue, 20 Oct 2026 14:50:44 +0000</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://hnrss.org/user?id=gaal_dornick" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"></atom:link><item><title><![CDATA[New comment by gaal_dornick in "How the Claude Code team does code review"]]></title><description><![CDATA[
<p>From the article: "merge with at most one human in the loop, who can be the author". Curious to see how this handles enterprise compliance requirements and insider threats?<p>- How was this approved for SOC2 compliance? Our SOC2 reviewer explicitly mentioned that all code needs to reviewed by at least one other human before it goes to production. Claude Code says they are SOC2 compliant (<a href="https://code.claude.com/docs/en/security" rel="nofollow">https://code.claude.com/docs/en/security</a>).<p>- This assumes all engineers will not do anything malicious. What is preventing a Claude engineer from spying on their ex's or some other companies Claude searches by pushing malicious code? Recently an OpenAI engineer was caught planting a recording device at their own office.</p>
]]></description><pubDate>Sat, 17 Oct 2026 00:25:35 +0000</pubDate><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=50126552</link><dc:creator>gaal_dornick</dc:creator><comments>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=50126552</comments><guid isPermaLink="false">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=50126552</guid></item></channel></rss>