A UK organisation buying software developed with AI assistants should evaluate the delivery controls and the people responsible for the result. Ask how suggested code is reviewed, how dependencies are checked, what information tools can access and what evidence accompanies a release. Faster code generation does not remove these decisions.
This is a different purchase from adding an AI feature to your product. A conventional booking system or internal portal may contain no customer-facing AI while its developers use coding assistants extensively. TuniCyberLabs serves buyers remotely. This guide gives a proposed review method for that delivery arrangement, without implying government approval or a particular supplier certification.
Use current UK guidance to make questions concrete
The UK Software Security Code of Practice is voluntary guidance that buyers can use in supplier discussions. It covers secure development, build environments, deployment and maintenance, and communication with customers. A supplier should explain which controls it implements and provide relevant evidence; referencing the code is not proof of certification.
A more specific signal comes from the Home Office engineering standard on AI use, updated 20 March 2026. For its own teams, it calls for human oversight, approved tools and equivalent security expectations for AI-assisted code. That departmental standard is not a requirement imposed on every UK business. Its practical procurement lesson is useful: tool choice should not weaken the acceptance standard.
Separate the productivity claim from the delivery obligation
Imagine a fictional retailer commissioning an account portal. A proposal says coding assistants will accelerate implementation. Ask what that changes in the commercial model: the effort estimate, delivery sequence, review allocation or simply the developer's preferred tools.
Have the supplier identify outputs you will receive regardless of how code was written. These might include source history, a deployable build, tests tied to acceptance criteria, dependency records and operating instructions. Your contract and acceptance process should cover those outputs directly.
Avoid evaluating value through generated line counts or a claimed percentage of AI-written code. Neither tells you whether the portal correctly separates customer accounts or whether another team can maintain it. Request evidence about the behaviour and change process you are buying.
Review the assistant's access before the first repository connection
Ask which tools may read source code, issue trackers, production logs or customer records. Identify who approves the configuration and how access is removed when a developer leaves. The answer should distinguish a development account from a production support account.
For the fictional portal, a useful boundary might permit approved development material while excluding production customer exports and credentials. The exact rule belongs to your organisation's requirements. Have the partner explain how the chosen workflow enforces it and which external services receive information.
Document exceptions rather than relying on an informal promise that everyone will be careful. A developer investigating a difficult defect needs a permitted way to obtain useful diagnostic information without quietly copying an entire production dataset into another tool.
Request one reviewable change as evidence
Choose a representative change, such as adding a saved delivery address. Ask the proposed team to describe the review path from requirement to release. You are evaluating the method, not asking several bidders to develop unpaid production features.
The discussion should cover:
- ▸The requirement and the account permissions it depends on.
- ▸How the engineer checks the proposed implementation.
- ▸Which tests demonstrate allowed and forbidden actions.
- ▸How newly suggested libraries are investigated.
- ▸Who can approve the change and bypass a control.
- ▸What release evidence remains available to the buyer.
A good review explains why the implementation fits the requirement. Accepting a generated patch because it compiles leaves business behaviour unexamined. Tests written with the same mistaken assumption can also pass, so domain review still matters.
Follow a dependency into the build
An assistant may propose a package that looks convenient. Ask the supplier to verify that it exists, is suitable for the task and has acceptable maintenance and licence characteristics. Then ask how the application records and updates that dependency.
Choose one example during technical discovery. Trace its version into the build configuration, examine how updates are tested and identify who responds when a relevant issue is discovered. The exercise should show an ordinary repeatable process, not depend on the memory of one senior developer.
Apply the same thinking to the build environment. Repository access, release credentials and deployment approval deserve explicit ownership. Protecting the application while leaving its publishing account unmanaged creates a different route to the same production impact.
Make disagreement and repair part of acceptance
Suppose reviewers find that the portal exposes another customer's address through an overlooked endpoint. The useful supplier response is a reproducible investigation, correction, regression check and review of related access paths. Whether an assistant originally suggested the code does not settle responsibility.
Agree how defects are reported and prioritised, and what evidence closes them. Distinguish a missed acceptance requirement from a newly requested feature. This helps the buyer and supplier handle a problem without turning every technical conversation into a pricing dispute.
Before handover, let a receiving engineer make a small change using the documentation and build process. That is direct evidence that the product can continue after the original development team moves on.
Buy accountable implementation
Use the European software vendor scorecard to compare proposals and the UK and Ireland support guide for post-launch response responsibilities. Those are separate decisions from approving how a supplier uses coding assistants.
Explore our software engineering services and request a supplier-assurance scope discussion. Bring the proposed application, your access constraints and the delivery evidence your reviewers need.