Claude Code security review with Code Radar.

See how Claude Code fits local review, which evidence Code Radar produces, where coverage ends, and how trusted findings move into CI.

Start this integration Review MCP setup

radar scan . --quick

What Claude Code means here.

Use Code Radar with Claude Code by scanning the repository locally, exposing structured findings through MCP or repair prompts, rescanning the change, and adding CI only when the signal is trusted.

Integration

Evidence to inspect

Use “Claude Code security review with Code Radar.” as the scope for this decision: verify the input, finding detail, workflow handoff, and product boundary before you install or buy.

CriterionEvidence to inspectBoundary

Input scopeSelected files, configuration, scan mode, and enabled rules.Only included paths and configured checks are evaluated.

Finding detailFile, line, rule ID, severity, explanation, and repair direction.Illustrative output is not a result from your repository.

Workflow handoffLocal result, report format, agent context, and optional CI signal.Enable exports or CI only when the workflow needs them.

Decision fitUse the same criteria on a real repository before choosing a plan or tool.No universal winner or guaranteed outcome is claimed.

Integration

Start this integration

Coverage and concrete signals

A repository-local scan exposed through MCP summaries, finding explanations, repair prompts, and a deliberate rescan.

Audience: Teams using Claude Code that want scanner-backed context before an agent proposes or repairs code.
Evidence to inspect before you trust the result.: MCP setup and doctor output, scanner-backed finding context, and the same report evidence a human reviewer can inspect.
Boundary: Code Radar supplies deterministic findings and MCP context; Claude Code remains responsible for edits and explanations.
Workflow: Claude Code · MCP · scan_project_summary · fix_prompt · rescan

From local signal to shared gate.

Claude Code: Use the smallest workflow that proves value. Each later step should reuse evidence the team already understands. MCP setup and doctor output, scanner-backed finding context, and the same report evidence a human reviewer can inspect.

StepCommand or actionDecision

1Run a quick local scanIs the signal useful?

2Inspect and repair findingsIs the fix specific and reproducible?

3Export portable evidenceDoes the reviewer need SARIF, JSON, or HTML?

4Promote the trusted threshold to CIWhich severity should block a pull request?

radar mcp install all
radar mcp doctor
radar scan . --quick

Official source

Primary sources

AnthropicModel Context Protocol
Model Context ProtocolModel Context Protocol specification

Validate the workflow on your own code.

Apply this page’s evidence to one real repository. For “Claude Code security review with Code Radar.”, confirm which finding is produced, whether the proposed next step is reproducible, and where local scanning, reports, agents, or CI should stop or expand.