Product & technical design review
Upload a PRD or technical architecture, and see the permission, data, flow, and interface risks in the design phase, before a line of code is written.
On this page
Stop the risk in the design, before you write a line of code.
Many risks are written in at the design stage
When you build a product or a technical design, the focus is on whether it can be done, when it ships, whether the experience is smooth, whether performance holds. Security gets pushed to later, surfacing only after development, before launch, or even during a customer audit.
But many risks are already baked in at the design stage:
- Permission boundaries left vague, so an ordinary role might touch data it shouldn't
- Business flows with no constraints, easy to bypass, game, or abuse at scale
- Services trusting each other by default, interfaces missing caller verification
- Callback interfaces validating only format, not signature, origin, and replay
- Too many fields collected, becoming privacy-compliance pressure later
- Key operations with no audit, untraceable after an incident
These don't always become code vulnerabilities right away, but once live, patching them means bolting on auth, fields, audit, and risk control — far costlier than editing a document. The worst part: product, engineering, legal, and management all look at the same design, but can't discuss it in one shared security language.
That's the round of judgment Mooth is here to add in advance.
Three steps to see design risks before development
Upload your design
A PRD, requirements doc, technical architecture, interface design, flow description, or pre-launch review material — all work.Mooth reviews the design's security
It analyzes risk at the design level around role permissions, data flow, business flow, interface boundaries, third-party dependencies, audit trails, and privacy compliance.Get a review-ready security report
Every risk explains why it's a risk, the real impact, and how to change the design, sorted by priority.If you're heading into a requirements review or a pre-development check, run it free once and see whether problems are already baked into the design.
What Mooth focuses on
Covers product and technical design risks at the design level, not just code:
| Risk category | Typical issue | Possible impact |
|---|---|---|
| Identity & permission design | Unclear role boundaries, privilege-escalation paths, approval gaps | Data leak, internal abuse |
| Data handling & flow | Over-collected fields, unclear sensitive-data flow, no masking | Privacy complaints, compliance remediation |
| Business-flow abuse | No rate limiting, bypassable state machine, unlimited bulk operations | Financial loss, fraud, risk-control bypass |
| Interface & API security | Services trusting by default, over-broad callback trust, missing signature checks | Expanded external attack surface (APIs are a leading cause of data leaks) |
| Third-party dependencies | Attack surface not re-assessed after integration, unclear responsibility boundaries | Risk propagation, unclear accountability |
| Audit & traceability | Key operations unlogged, no trace path | Can't locate the cause after an incident |
| Privacy & compliance | Compliance risk baked in at the design stage | Complaints and remediation after launch |
Mooth looks at whether these risks hold in the design, rather than scanning after the code is written.
What a report looks like
Directly affects the business · High priority — backend export lacks role and scope constraints
Real impact: an ops role can export phone numbers, transaction records, and identity status across all users. The moment an account is misgranted or stolen, sensitive data can be taken in bulk.
Root cause: the design only says "the backend supports data export," without defining exportable fields, role scope, an approval chain, or watermark audit.
How to fix: limit field scope by role, mask sensitive fields by default, require approval for exports above a threshold, and watermark export files and log the operations.
Every item answers just three things: where the problem is, how bad the real impact is, and how to change the design. Read it and take it to the review meeting.
Why Mooth differs from an ordinary review
It looks at business design, not just code vulnerabilities. Many product risks hold before any code exists. Mooth looks at roles, permissions, data, flow, and external dependencies together, rather than scanning after implementation.
Its view goes beyond technology. What actually goes wrong in a design may be not just a technical vulnerability, but a compliance risk (over-collected fields) or a business risk (a gameable flow). Mooth looks at them together, rather than only at technical issues like a scanner.
It translates risk into words the team can discuss. The report doesn't just say "high" or "medium." It explains how the design would be exploited, which users and business it affects, and how product and engineering should change it together.
It separates must-fix from acceptable. Not every problem means overturning the design. Mooth separates the controls that must be added, the points that can be backstopped by process, and the issues that don't need escalation yet.
It's for teams with no dedicated security reviewer. Product, engineering, the CTO, and legal can all read the report and move the review forward from one shared conclusion.
Is your document safe
Product and technical designs often contain business flows, field designs, and commercial information, so Mooth handles them on a least-necessary basis:
- It only analyzes what you upload or authorize and won't reach into unrelated systems.
- Nothing enters model training — documents are used only for this review or a context you authorize.
- Deletable and revocable — you can delete the conversation and files any time and revoke any data-source access.
Review your design now
No security checklist to prepare, no fixed format to organize. Upload a PRD, an architecture, or review material, and within minutes you get a review-ready design security report you can discuss and act on.
Better to see the design's risks now than to patch vulnerabilities right before launch.