The correct answer is Use Copilot to surface risky coding patterns and pair it with GitHub Advanced Security including CodeQL and Dependabot for full coverage.

This approach aligns with the goal of catching issues during pull request reviews across many services. Copilot can flag risky patterns and propose safer alternatives in context, while GitHub Advanced Security adds enterprise grade scanning and governance. CodeQL performs semantic analysis to uncover vulnerabilities in your custom code, and Dependabot monitors and updates vulnerable dependencies. Together they bring findings into the pull request so reviewers can act before merging and they provide coverage for both first party code and the supply chain.

You still need reviewer validation and tests. Use Copilot to accelerate understanding and improvement of changes, and rely on CodeQL and Dependabot to enforce consistent checks across all repositories so you maintain defense in depth during code review.

Turn on Security Command Center in your Google Cloud project and rely on it to scan pull requests for code flaws is incorrect because Security Command Center focuses on Google Cloud resources and workloads rather than scanning GitHub pull requests, so it will not review code diffs in your repository.

Accept Copilot security fix suggestions as final without additional validation since the model follows best practices is incorrect because AI suggestions require human review, automated scanning, and testing, and blind acceptance can introduce or miss vulnerabilities.

Ask Copilot to refactor files into an AI friendly style for speed and disregard its security hints because it is mainly for completion is incorrect because ignoring security guidance undermines the goal of secure reviews and refactoring for speed does not replace dedicated security analysis.

Full AWS Practitioner Certification Question