Live Demo · AI Governance · Deterministic Analysis

AI Governance
Code Scanner

Most AI governance assessments are expensive, subjective, and slow — a week of consultant interviews produces a report that's already stale. This scanner shows a different approach: point it at any public repository and receive a scored compliance analysis in under 30 seconds, derived directly from source code. No generated answers. No manual review. Just a reproducible, auditable baseline that's the same every time you run it. This scanner is the code-analysis module inside the full v3 governance dashboard, which adds a Framework Explorer, Policy-as-Code engine, and a DevSecOps / PM-Scrum / Software Factory runbook library on top of the same scan engine.

Live · Powered by Azure Function (Flex Consumption)
AI Governance Code Scanner
Deterministic pattern analysis · Real GitHub repos · Sub-30s results
Live
Infrastructure: Azure Function (Flex Consumption, Python 3.11) · GitHub Trees API + raw content fetch · 8-worker parallel processing · CORS-enabled for this origin · ← Back to Demos

Why deterministic analysis over AI-generated review

Organizations building AI products are increasingly expected to demonstrate compliance with NIST AI RMF, ISO 42001, the EU AI Act, and other frameworks before going to production or facing audit. The problem is that compliance assessment has traditionally required hiring consultants or security firms to conduct manual code reviews — a process that costs weeks, depends on reviewer expertise, and produces a point-in-time artifact that doesn't stay current as the codebase evolves.

Design Principle 1
Scan the actual code, not a description of it
The scanner fetches raw source files via the GitHub API and runs regex-based rules directly against them. Each finding includes the exact line of code that triggered it. This produces evidence that can be reviewed and disputed — not a probabilistic summary that can't be traced back to a specific artifact.
Design Principle 2
Deterministic results that survive re-runs
All analysis is pattern-matching — no LLM inference involved. The same repository scanned twice returns identical findings. This matters for audit and certification workflows: a tool whose output changes between runs can't be used as a compliance artifact. Determinism is a design requirement, not an implementation detail.
Design Principle 3
Severity-weighted scoring that prioritizes what matters
Each framework pillar produces a 0–100 score weighted by finding severity — a single Critical gap has more impact than five Info findings. This gives teams a triage signal: fix the Critical and High gaps first, then work down. An overall score aggregates across frameworks so leadership has a single number to track over time.
The value proposition: A team can run this scanner on a new repository before any compliance engagement, arrive at the first meeting with a scored baseline, and direct the assessment conversation toward the specific gaps the tool identified — rather than starting from scratch. What used to take days of pre-work takes 30 seconds.

10 governance frameworks, 40+ pillars

Coverage was built by translating canonical framework requirements into testable code patterns. Each framework maps to its standard pillar structure — so a NIST result can be taken directly into an AI RMF assessment, and an EU AI Act result maps directly to Article obligations. Coverage spans the major AI and data governance standards plus enterprise-specific domains.

NIST AI RMF
The NIST Artificial Intelligence Risk Management Framework. Four pillars covering the full AI lifecycle — organizational readiness through active model management.
GovernMapMeasureManage
ISO 42001
International standard for AI Management Systems. Covers leadership commitment, risk treatment, operational planning, and continual improvement of AI systems.
LeadershipRiskOperationsImprovement
EU AI Act
European Union regulation for high-risk AI systems. Scans for data governance (Article 10), human oversight (Article 14), transparency (Article 13), and accuracy requirements (Article 15).
Article 10 — DataArticle 13 — TransparencyArticle 14 — OversightArticle 15 — Accuracy
HIPAA
Healthcare data protection. Checks for PHI handling patterns, access controls, encryption, audit logging, and minimum necessary access principles in source code.
PHI HandlingAccess ControlAudit TrailEncryption
GDPR
EU General Data Protection Regulation. Evaluates consent management, data minimization, right to erasure patterns, anonymization, and cross-border transfer controls.
ConsentMinimizationErasureAnonymization
FedRAMP
Federal Risk and Authorization Management Program. Checks for role-based access control, FIPS-validated encryption, audit logging, and continuous monitoring / POA&M artifacts.
Access ControlEncryptionAudit LoggingContinuous Monitoring
CMMC 2.0
Cybersecurity Maturity Model Certification. Verifies MFA enforcement, incident response planning, malware/patch management, and configuration management baselines for CUI-handling systems.
MFAIncident ResponseSystem IntegrityConfig Management
ISO/IEC 23894
AI risk management standard. Scans for risk identification, likelihood/severity analysis, risk treatment plans, and periodic risk monitoring/review evidence.
Risk IdentificationRisk AnalysisRisk TreatmentMonitoring
ISO/IEC 42005
AI system impact assessment standard. Checks for impact identification, stakeholder/affected-party analysis, impact documentation, and mitigation measures.
Impact AssessmentStakeholder AnalysisDocumentationMitigation
ISO/IEC 27001
Information security management standard. Evaluates access control, cryptographic controls (including hardcoded-credential detection), operations security, and incident management.
Access ControlCryptographyOps SecurityIncident Mgmt