An AI SaaS security review agent collects what the vendor has supplied, such as a security questionnaire, certification reports, a data processing agreement and any public trust pages.
Takes a new or existing SaaS tool into the review queue.
Reads vendor security pages, reports and questionnaire answers provided.
Checks each requirement in your policy against that evidence.
Lists missing, expired or weak evidence with reasons.
The security reviewer judges the gaps and sets conditions.
Stores the decision and next review date on the vendor record.
It compares those claims with your required controls, for example where data is stored, how access is managed and what happens on a breach, and marks each as met, partly met or missing.
It produces a summary for the reviewer with the open questions already worded for the vendor, so follow-up goes out quickly once a person approves it.
Reviews need many documents in different formats, and the same questions are asked again for each new tool.
Reports, questionnaires and contract terms arrive by email and portal, so the full picture takes time to assemble.
A review of a small tool and a review of a tool holding sensitive data need different effort, but the line is often drawn by instinct.
A tool that passed review once can change its subprocessors or hosting later, and nobody revisits it.
Security teams get requests faster than they can read documents, so business users buy first and ask later.
Decide the review depth from the kind of data the tool will hold and the number of people who will use it.
Collect the vendor's documents and note anything requested but not yet received.
Check each requirement against what the documents state and quote the source passage.
Mark items that are unclear, contradictory or missing, and draft a question for each.
Produce a one-page view for the reviewer with findings grouped by control area.
Bring a small sample and watch Flo work through it.
| Aspect | By hand | With the agent |
|---|---|---|
| Evidence hunt | Reviewers search vendor sites and email for certificates and reports. | The agent collects what is supplied or public and lists what is still missing. |
| Policy fit | Each reviewer reads documents against policy in their own way. | Every requirement is checked in the same order with the source quoted. |
| Gaps | Missing items surface late, after the user has started using the tool. | Gaps are listed at the start so requests go out early. |
| Visibility | Business users cannot tell where a review stands. | Status and open questions are visible on the request. |
| Re-review | Reviews are not repeated until something goes wrong. | Dates on evidence trigger a prompt for the next review. |
| If | Then | Who decides |
|---|---|---|
| A required document is missing | Draft a request to the vendor for the reviewer to send | Security reviewer sends |
| An audit report has passed its date | Mark it expired and ask for a current one | Security reviewer |
| The tool will handle personal or sensitive data | Raise the review depth and note the data type | Security lead decides |
| Answers conflict between two vendor documents | Quote both and flag the conflict | Security reviewer |
| Evidence covers a different product than the one bought | Flag the scope mismatch | Security reviewer and buyer |
| The tool is already in use with no review on record | Start a review and note current users | Application owner is told |
A vendor may answer a questionnaire without independent proof. The agent labels such answers as self-reported so the reviewer can weigh them.
The vendor may cover its platform while the customer must configure settings. The agent lists the customer-side settings for the owner to confirm.
Some vendors only share under a confidentiality agreement. The agent flags the blocker and the reviewer decides whether to proceed or decline.
A team may want to start before the review ends. The agent records the request and the risk owner decides whether to allow limited use.
Talk it through with the team. We will map it to your steps and show where a person stays in control.
Turn security requirements into a plain list the agent can check against.
Run the agent beside reviewers on a few tools and compare summaries.
Adjust what counts as current and acceptable evidence.
Apply it to new requests and existing tools, with reviewers still deciding.
This shows whether decisions rest on a full file. A low figure suggests reviews are being closed on partial evidence or documents are not being chased.
Quick answers to what people ask most about saaS security review.
Book a demoIt is an assessment of a software vendor's security controls and data handling against your own requirements. It usually covers certifications, access controls, data location, incident handling and subprocessors.
No. It collects evidence and summarises gaps. The security reviewer makes and records the decision.
It reads whatever the vendor provides, such as questionnaires, audit reports, policies and the data processing agreement, plus the contract terms on file.
That is a policy choice, often tied to the sensitivity of the data and to renewal dates. The agent can flag renewals and vendor changes so a reviewer can decide whether a fresh look is needed.
Seat rightsizing is adjusting the number and tier of software seats so they match how people actually work.
→SaaS offboarding is removing a departing person's access, or retiring a whole application, so seats, data and costs are closed out properly.
→Unused license detection is the practice of finding paid software seats that are assigned but not being used.
→OAuth app discovery is finding third-party applications that employees have connected to company accounts using a sign-in grant instead of a purchase.
→Bring a small sample of real items. We will show what Flo handles on its own and where it hands over to your team.
