Use case
AI coding assistant
Completion, chat and agentic editing inside the editor, grounded in the repository. The questions that decide the deployment are where the code is sent, whether it is retained, and what the generated code is derived from.
- Source
- Editorial ontology entry — no fetched document behind this page
- Evidence
- none on this page — it links to the pages that hold it
- Category
- Engineering
- Typical risk
- high
- Entry
- editorial · reviewed 25 Aug 2026
01What this is
A coding assistant indexes repositories and offers completions, explanations and multi-file edits. Delivery ranges from a vendor SaaS plugin to a self-hosted server running an open-weight code model against a private index.
A good deployment states exactly what is transmitted (open file, repository context, terminal output), configures exclusions for secrets and regulated code, keeps telemetry and prompt retention off where policy requires, and keeps review discipline: generated code goes through the same tests and review as written code. Licence-attribution features are switched on where available.
Pitfalls: proprietary code sent to a consumer tier whose terms permit training; secrets in context windows; and productivity claims measured on nothing. For European teams, developers' prompts and telemetry are employee personal data, so works-council and transparency duties can apply to the rollout itself.
- Typical data
- source code, internal documents, employee data
- Solution classes it admits
- Enterprise SaaS, Private cloud, Self-hosted
02Deployment options
- ASSESSMENT
On a neutral reading of this use case, Self-hosted is a strong alternative, Private cloud is a strong alternative and Enterprise SaaS is conditional.
- ASSESSMENT
Read as a generic reading of this page, not a recommendation: no organisation, size, jurisdiction, budget or technical capability has been supplied, so wherever an option depends on one of those, it says "unknown". Ask your own question to get a verdict that accounts for them.
Private cloud
STRONG ALTERNATIVEManaged model API or private model deployment in your cloud account
- ASSESSMENT
Two patterns fit inside one account in a region you name: call a managed foundation-model API such as Amazon Bedrock, Microsoft Foundry / Azure OpenAI, or Vertex AI; or deploy an open-weight model on GPU compute you control. Your application, retrieval layer, storage, identity and logs remain in your cloud boundary in both patterns.
- ASSESSMENT
The managed-API pattern can use closed-source frontier models without buying or operating GPUs. It is usually the fastest way to build a custom workflow, but prompts and retrieved context are processed by the managed service, so model availability, retention, abuse monitoring and regional routing must be checked for the exact feature and endpoint.
- ASSESSMENT
The private-model pattern gives more control over weights, serving and network paths, and can use managed endpoints or your own containers. It also makes your team responsible for capacity, patches, model upgrades, evaluation and failover.
- ASSESSMENT
The cloud provider becomes a data processor in either pattern: you need a DPA, a documented region, and an answer on cross-region routing and where support staff can access the environment from.
- RECOMMENDATION
Start with the managed-API pattern when the workflow is custom but model operations are not the source of competitive advantage; move to private model serving only if evaluation, volume, portability or the data boundary justifies the extra operations. Your stated technical capability is "unknown".
Self-hosted
STRONG ALTERNATIVEOpen-weight models on infrastructure you operate
- ASSESSMENT
Documents, queries and embeddings stay on machines you own, using an open-weight model whose licence you review. For a brief that involves confidential documents and personal data, that removes a model-API vendor from the data path rather than governing that transfer by contract.
- ASSESSMENT
It costs you the operational work instead: a GPU server, Docker, Linux, backups and a patching routine. Your stated technical capability is "unknown", which is the attribute this option most depends on.
- ASSESSMENT
No processor agreement, subprocessor list or cross-border transfer assessment is needed for the model itself, because no third party processes the content.
- RECOMMENDATION
Recommended where local processing is preferred (you did not say so) and the content is sensitive (confidential documents and personal data).
Enterprise SaaS
CONSIDER IFFinished closed-source cloud product with enterprise controls
- ASSESSMENT
This is a complete vendor application, not a model API: examples include an enterprise assistant, coding copilot or document product with the workflow, interface, connectors and administration already built. It can use closed-source cloud models while requiring no model hosting or application engineering from your team.
- RECOMMENDATION
Choose it when the product already performs the actual workflow and its controls meet your requirements. Do not choose it only because its underlying model is strong: a finished SaaS product is less flexible than building against a managed API when your process, integrations or review steps are organisation-specific.
- ASSESSMENT
Vendor commitments are treated as unverified until we have fetched the page that makes them. Until then this option carries questions to ask, not assurances: a signed data processing agreement covering the data you will actually put in; a documented data residency commitment naming the region, in the contract rather than a blog post; a written no-training commitment for your content, including uploads and connected sources; stated retention periods and a deletion path you can exercise; an administrative audit log you can export, and SSO with group-based access control.
- RECOMMENDATION
No jurisdiction was named, so this is the check rather than the conclusion: compare the vendor's stated processing locations and subprocessor list against the cross-border transfer rules wherever you operate before uploading anything.
03Deployment stacks
04Tools by hosting option
Self-hosted4
- HybridContinueOpen-source IDE extension for VS Code and JetBrains that connects completion and chat to any model back end, including a local server, under a checked-in configuration file.
- PlatformLiteLLMGateway that presents one OpenAI-compatible API in front of many providers and local servers, with per-team keys, budgets, rate limits, fallbacks and request logging.
- Model serverOllamaLocal model runtime with a one-command install, a model library and an OpenAI-compatible API. The usual starting point for running open-weight models on a workstation or small server.
- Self-hostedTabbySelf-hosted coding assistant with its own inference server, repository-aware context and IDE extensions. Runs entirely inside the network, including on a single GPU.
Private cloud4
- HybridContinueOpen-source IDE extension for VS Code and JetBrains that connects completion and chat to any model back end, including a local server, under a checked-in configuration file.
- PlatformLiteLLMGateway that presents one OpenAI-compatible API in front of many providers and local servers, with per-team keys, budgets, rate limits, fallbacks and request logging.
- Model serverOllamaLocal model runtime with a one-command install, a model library and an OpenAI-compatible API. The usual starting point for running open-weight models on a workstation or small server.
- Self-hostedTabbySelf-hosted coding assistant with its own inference server, repository-aware context and IDE extensions. Runs entirely inside the network, including on a single GPU.
Vendor cloud4
- HybridContinueOpen-source IDE extension for VS Code and JetBrains that connects completion and chat to any model back end, including a local server, under a checked-in configuration file.
- SaaSCursorEditor built around AI-assisted editing: multi-file agent edits, codebase-wide context and chat. Offers a privacy mode and team administration on business plans.
- SaaSGitHub CopilotCode completion, chat and agent features inside the editor and on github.com, with organisation policy controls, content exclusions and audit logs on business plans.
- PlatformLiteLLMGateway that presents one OpenAI-compatible API in front of many providers and local servers, with per-team keys, budgets, rate limits, fallbacks and request logging.
On-premise (enterprise plan)1
05Compliance hot spots
This use case usually raises intellectual property, copyright, open-source licensing, confidentiality, model training, personal data, terms-of-service restrictions, logging, security, transparency.
- Intellectual property
- No published jurisdiction page names this topic yet
- Copyright
- No published jurisdiction page names this topic yet
- Open-source licensing
- No published jurisdiction page names this topic yet
- Model training
- No published jurisdiction page names this topic yet
- Personal data
- No published jurisdiction page names this topic yet
- Terms-of-service restrictions
- No published jurisdiction page names this topic yet
- Logging
- European Union
- Security
- China (mainland)
- Transparency
- United KingdomJapanSouth Korea
06Example questions
Each of these opens the question box with the text already in it. The answer is researched for your organisation, not for this page.
07Related use cases
Nothing else in the ontology sits in this category yet.
Improve this page
Sign in to contribute
From the field
0 deployments · 0 questions
Nobody has reported deploying this here yet, and no question has been opened against this page. Both appear once a reviewer accepts them.