EvidenceSheet

SEC11-BP04 Conduct code reviews

Require peer review on every code change with explicit security review criteria, and use CodeGuru Reviewer or similar to augment human review.

Source: AWS Well-Architected Security Pillar, SEC11-BP04. The statement above is our statement of the clause, read from the published text and cited so you can check it against the official text, not the instrument verbatim. Open AWS Well-Architected Security Pillar in the compliance library.

4
artefacts
2
held by a system
1
at each review
easy
to go live
Source control / CI pipeline
where the evidence lives
teal = a system already holds it · olive = produced at each review. To go live: easy when half or more of the artefacts are already held by a system, moderate from a quarter to a half, hard below a quarter.

These are the artefacts auditors commonly ask for on this requirement, our guidance rather than text from the standard. Your assessor decides what is sufficient in your context, and asks for samples across the period when a report covers one.

system holds itEvidence a system already holds

  • Branch protection rules · Source control / CI pipeline
  • Review approval logs · SIEM / log platform

periodic reviewEvidence produced at each review

  • CodeGuru Reviewer findings · Source control / CI pipeline

governing documentDocuments that govern the control

  • Code review checklist · Policy repository / GRC workspace

First move

Automate the pull from your Source control / CI pipeline. Pull-request approvals, pipeline test results and deployment records from source control, per release.

Common gaps auditors find

Do this for your whole sheet

Paste the rows you run your controls from and get this mapping for every control at once, with the periodic-review ones flagged and a first move per row. No account for the first run.

Build my evidence sheet

SEC11-BP03 Perform regular penetration testing · SEC11-BP05 Centralize services for packages and dependencies