Self-hosted, EU-resident AI code review for regulated teams

The real blocker

The problem isn't the reviews. It's the data path. Most AI code reviewers are multi-tenant services hosted in the US. To review your pull request, your diff — and often the surrounding repository context — leaves your environment and is processed on infrastructure you do not control, in a jurisdiction you did not choose.

Since Schrems II, that is a legal exposure, not just a preference. Moving EU personal or confidential data to a US service pulls in standard contractual clauses, a transfer impact assessment, and an argument you would rather not have to make to a regulator. For a team under GDPR, DORA, or a customer contract with data-locality clauses, the assessment cannot rely on informal reassurance.

Keeping the data in the EU — and ideally inside your own perimeter — makes the question go away instead of managing it.

Three ways to run it

Pick the boundary that fits your risk model. Spinal runs in three shapes, and all of them keep your code in the EU. The difference is how much of the boundary you operate yourself.

Managed, EU region. We run Spinal for you in an EU region. Your data stays in the EU and you carry no operational load — the right default for most EU teams that do not need physical isolation.

Single-tenant. A dedicated, isolated instance with its own database and storage, not shared with other customers. For teams that need a hard tenancy boundary but still want it managed.

Self-hosted, VPC or on-prem. Spinal runs entirely inside your infrastructure. Source never crosses a boundary your team has not approved. The strongest control, in exchange for running it yourself.

Your model or ours. By default, Spinal reviews code with its own models, so getting a review does not mean shipping your code to a third-party model vendor. Prefer your own? Bring your own model provider and run inference under your own agreement.

For your auditor

Sovereignty you can prove, not just claim. Residency only counts if procurement and security can verify it without a back-and-forth. Spinal ships the artifacts a review actually asks for:

• An Art. 28 GDPR Data Processing Agreement, with a published sub-processor list.
• A full audit trail of every review and action.
• SSO via SAML or OIDC, so access is governed centrally.
• A clear record of where your data lives and what, if anything, leaves your environment.

That is the difference between telling a regulator you are compliant and showing them.

None of it costs you the review

Sovereignty usually means accepting a weaker tool. Not here. The same production-aware review runs in your environment: findings grounded in your architecture and live production signals, risky changes validated by tests that actually run, complete reports before merge. You give up the data exposure — not the depth.