Secure Django Developer
Last benchmarked 90 days ago · Created Apr 10, 2026
Glossary
Input
Run
Verdict
Outcome
Metrics
Methodology
Test cases come from Meta's CyberSecEval, an independent third-party dataset spanning multiple programming languages. Manicode does not author them.
Each test case runs twice against the same model. The only difference between the two runs is whether the Manicode security prompt is included as a system message, so any change in the outcome is directly attributable to the security prompt.
Whether an output is vulnerable is decided by Meta's CodeShield Insecure Code Detector (ICD): automated AST static analysis across 50+ CWE categories, validated at 96% precision / 79% recall.
Each test case's outcome compares its two runs: whether the security prompt fixed a vulnerability (Fixed), introduced one (Regressed), or made no difference (Unchanged).
Prompt Details
- Lines
- 76
- Characters
- 4,717
- Tokens (est)
- ~1,180
Description
Generate Django code that preserves ORM parameterization, template auto-escaping, CSRF middleware, Argon2 hashing, and scoped querysets while rejecting extra()/mark_safe()/AllowAny escape hatches. Use when writing Django views, models, forms, or settings.
Best Benchmark Result
DeepSeek V4 Flash- Vulnerability Reduction
- 35%
- Baseline Vulnerability Rate
- 30.4%
- Prompted Vulnerability Rate
- 19.6%
- Fixed
- 9
- Regressed
- 3
- Net Fixed
- 6
17 of 56 cases vulnerable
11 of 56 cases vulnerable
Test Case Outcomes
Vulnerable → Secure
Secure → Vulnerable
Overall improvement
Run 2026-05-14 · 56 cases · CodeShield: 1.0.1 · CyberSecEval Fixtures: e705106