Skip to main content
Glama

bouncer

Static compliance-controls checker — the controls a regulation requires, verified in your code.

npm CI license: MIT node dependencies

nugehs.github.io/bouncer-web (site)

bouncer demo

bouncer verifies that the controls a regulation requires actually exist in your code — UK Online Safety Act, ICO Children's Code (AADC), and Nigeria (NDPC, FCCPC, FIRS) — expressed as deterministic rule packs. It runs in CI, exits non-zero when a required control is missing, and needs no LLM.

It checks IDs at the door so non-compliant code doesn't get in.

bouncer is an engineering aid, not legal advice. A green report means the coded controls a rule looks for were found — it is not a substitute for a compliance / DPO review.


Why

Regulators now expect demonstrable controls: age assurance, high-privacy defaults for children, report/block affordances on user-generated content, a DPIA, a risk assessment. Those are concrete things that either exist in a codebase or don't. bouncer turns a regulation into a set of static checks over your repo, the same way tieline turns an API contract into drift checks — the engine knows nothing about the law; the rule packs do.

bouncer vs semgrep / policy-as-code

Scanners like semgrep, CodeQL, or Snyk answer "is there bad code here?" — they hunt for vulnerabilities and dangerous patterns that shouldn't exist. bouncer answers the opposite question: "does the code the regulation requires actually exist?" — age assurance on sign-up, report/block on UGC surfaces, high-privacy defaults for children. A repo can be vulnerability-free and still fail every one of those obligations. Policy-as-code tools (OPA/Rego, Conftest) gate configs and infrastructure against policy; bouncer gates application source against regulatory rule packs, with file:line evidence for every control and an honest unknown when a surface can't be located. In short: semgrep finds vulnerabilities; bouncer proves required controls exist. They complement each other — run both.

Related MCP server: scopeguard-mcp

Install

npx @nugehs/bouncer init
npx @nugehs/bouncer check

Or clone and run with plain Node (zero runtime dependencies, Node ≥ 18).

Usage

bouncer init [path]                 # write a starter bouncer.config.json
bouncer check                       # run packs, print report, exit 1 on a missing control
bouncer check --pack uk-aadc        # restrict to one pack
bouncer check --status fail         # show only the failures
bouncer report --out report.html    # self-contained HTML audit report
bouncer list                        # every rule the configured packs apply
bouncer explain <ruleId>            # what a rule requires + how it is checked
bouncer packs                       # rule packs shipped with bouncer
bouncer doctor                      # sanity-check config, adapter, packs
bouncer mcp                         # start the MCP server (stdio)

Verdicts

Verdict

Meaning

pass

the required control was found (evidence: file:line)

fail

the surface exists, but no evidence of the control was found

unknown

the surface could not be located in this repo — can't determine, not a pass

unknown is deliberate: bouncer never reports a green pass for a surface it could not find. Missing surface → honest "can't determine".

Configuration

bouncer.config.json:

{
  "target": {
    "adapter": "auto",
    "repo": "./my-app",
    "roots": ["."]
  },
  "packs": ["uk-osa", "uk-aadc"],
  "packDirs": [],
  "ignore": [],
  "exclude": [],
  "failOn": ["fail"]
}
  • adapter — how regulation surfaces (sign-up, profile, chat, livestream…) map onto files for your stack.

bouncer is language-agnostic. The default auto adapter scans TS/JS, Go, Java, Kotlin, Scala, C#, C/C++, Rust, Swift, Dart, PHP, Python, Ruby, Elixir, SQL and HTML templates. Surfaces are found by directory/file names in any naming convention (signup/, sign_up.py, SignUpController.java). Comments and test/fixture files are never counted as evidence. next and react-native remain as TS/JS-only aliases. Narrow with target.languages.

  • exclude — extra globs to skip (added to built-in test/fixture/mock excludes; set "defaultExcludes": false to disable those).

  • packs — which rule packs to run. Built-ins: uk-osa, uk-aadc, ng-ndpc, ng-fccpc, ng-firs.

  • packDirs — extra directories of your own *.json packs.

  • ignore — rule ids to skip.

  • failOn — which buckets make check exit non-zero (default ["fail"]). Regardless of failOn, check also exits 1 when every rule is unknown: no surface was located, so nothing was verified.

  • Keys starting with _ (e.g. "_note") are treated as comments and ignored silently.

Rule packs

A pack is JSON. Each rule maps a legal standard to a static assertion over a surface:

{
  "id": "aadc.geolocation-default-off",
  "standard": "Standard 10 — Geolocation",
  "severity": "high",
  "surface": "profile",
  "intent": "Geolocation must default to off for children.",
  "fix": "Default any location-sharing setting to off.",
  "assert": {
    "find": "(share[_-]?location|location[_-]?sharing)[\"']?\\s*[:=]\\s*(false|off)\\b",
    "in": ["profile", "privacy", "location"],
    "expect": "present"
  }
}

Assertion nodes:

  • { "find": "<regex>", "in": "<surface|glob>", "expect": "present|absent" }

  • { "allOf": [ … ] } · { "anyOf": [ … ] } · { "not": … }

in accepts a surface alias (resolved by the adapter), an array of aliases/globs, or a raw glob. expect: "absent" flips the meaning — a match is a violation (used for nudge patterns, self-declared age checkboxes, etc.).

Surfaces

any, signup, auth, profile, privacy, location, chat, livestream, ugc, moderation, consent, legal, dsr, security, retention, breach, processors, payments, invoice, governance. Unknown surface names are pack-validation errors.

Nigeria packs

For a platform operating in Nigeria, three packs ship built-in:

  • ng-ndpc — Nigeria Data Protection Act 2023 (NDPC): privacy notice, opt-in & granular consent, data-subject rights, encryption, retention/erasure, NDPA localization, DPO designation, 72-hour breach plan, cross-border safeguards.

  • ng-fccpc — consumer protection (FCCPC): blanket "no refund / all sales final" clauses flagged as void — and high-precision, so a tiered or conditional refund policy doesn't trip it — plus refund-policy present, no drip pricing, explicit terms acceptance, terms of service present.

  • ng-firs — tax (FIRS): 7.5% VAT rate, VAT on commission, WHT on payouts, VAT tax invoice.

Some obligations are process, not code — NDPC registration, signed cross-border DPAs, the WHT remittance itself. Those rules surface as gaps to track (add them to ignore with a note), not things a static scan can prove.

MCP

bouncer is also an MCP server (stdio), so an agent can pull the same deterministic results:

Tool

Purpose

compliance_check

run packs, return per-control verdicts + evidence

list_rules

list rules the configured packs apply

explain_rule

a rule's standard, intent, fix, and how it is checked

list_packs

available rule packs

// .mcp.json
{ "mcpServers": { "bouncer": { "command": "npx", "args": ["-y", "@nugehs/bouncer", "mcp"] } } }

CI

- run: npx @nugehs/bouncer check

Fails the build when a required control goes missing — e.g. someone removes an age-gate or a report button from a UGC surface.

Tests

npm test    # node --test — zero dependencies, nothing to install

The suite runs on Node's built-in test runner against throwaway fixture repos: glob/brace expansion, every assertion probe (find, allOf/anyOf/not, allInFile + within windows, expect: "absent"), the pass/fail/unknown verdict semantics, and pack loading. CI runs it on Node 18, 20, 22, and 24.

License

MIT


Part of the toolchain

bouncer is one of four tools that form a deterministic trust layer for AI-assisted development. Each answers a question people keep handing to an LLM — with static analysis instead.

  • repoctx — context: what does this change actually touch?

  • tieline — contracts: did the front end and back end quietly stop agreeing?

  • bouncer (this tool) — compliance: could you defend this to Ofcom?

  • aiglare — governance: where can the model do something you can't undo?

More at segunolumbe.com. static analysis, never the model.

Tool Schema Changelog

Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Loading tool schema changelog…

    Related MCP Connectors

    Related MCP Servers

    • A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      B
      maintenance
      MCP server for static analysis of multi-tenant SaaS and MCP server code, catching cross-tenant data leakage. Provides tools to scan code, list/explain rules, and manage suppressions.
      1,216 npm
      5
      MIT
    • A
      license
      A
      quality
      C
      maintenance
      Enables policy-first defensive security operations for MCP, providing repository and web-security analysis with controlled authorization, scoped execution, and auditability.
      9
      1
      MIT
    • A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      B
      maintenance
      Enables users to trace regulatory rule changes to affected parties and required actions through deterministic safety gates, returning dated action plans and hash-linked evidence records. Supports 12 MCP tools over stdio or streamable HTTP for source comparison, obligation decomposition, scope assessment, planning, and evidence validation across multiple domain packs.
      MIT