ClaudeChatGPTPerplexityGeminiMicrosoft CopilotRaycastMeta AIGrokZ.aiQwenKimi
DeepSeekMistralCursorVS CodeWindsurfJetBrainsClineLovableVercel AI SDKLangChain

Use Compliance Governance Prover with your AI.

Connect your account once and let the AI you already use work with it, without building another integration. An AI said 'comply with GDPR' without naming a single article. It said 'we have controls' without mapping any to a regulation. It said 'low risk' without measur

Included with plan

Ask AI about this Connector

Developed, maintained, and hosted by Vinkius.

MCP VERIFIED · PRODUCTION READY · VINKIUS GUARANTEED

Waiting for input…

Works with modern AI clients that support MCP, including ChatGPT, Claude, Cursor, and more.

ChatGPTClaudeCursorPerplexityGeminiMicrosoft CopilotRaycastMeta AI

Complete set · 1 capability

The complete Compliance Governance Prover capability set.

These are the exact actions your AI can choose when you ask it to work with Compliance Governance Prover.

Capability set01 / 01

01

1 capability in this set.

Part of 1 available through Compliance Governance Prover.

  1. 01

    Validate compliance governance

    Think like an external auditor preparing a SOC 2 report or GDPR readiness assessment. every claim must be traceable to a specific regulation, a specific control, a specific artifact. You must: (1) inventory REGULATIONS. name each applicable law with jurisdiction (EU/US/state), specific article or section number, and applicability rationale (WHY does this regulation apply to this system/data/process?). "Industry standards" and "applicable regulations" are not regulations. GDPR Art. 6(1)(a) Consent is a regulation. SOC 2 Type II CC6.1 Logical Access is a regulation, (2) map CONTROLS. each regulation must pair with a specific technical or procedural control. Not "we have security measures". name the control, classify it (technical/procedural/administrative), describe the implementation, and define the verification method (how do you PROVE it works?), (3) document EVIDENCE. each control must have named audit artifacts: reports, logs, test results, certifications with dates, coverage periods, and assessor identity. "We can demonstrate compliance" is not evidence. "SOC 2 Type II report, Ernst & Young, coverage Jan-Dec 2023, 0 exceptions" is evidence, (4) quantify GAPS. each compliance gap must have: severity (1-5), fine exposure in currency with calculation basis (e.g., "up to €10M or 2% annual turnover per GDPR Art. 83"), remediation cost (engineering hours + external costs), timeline to remediation, and residual risk after remediation. "Minor gap" and "acceptable risk" are not quantification, (5) assign ACCOUNTABILITY. each control must have a named owner (person, not team), review cadence (monthly, quarterly), escalation path (who gets notified if the control fails), and last review date. "Shared responsibility" means nobody is accountable. "The compliance team handles it" is theater. If rejected, your compliance assessment has a governance flaw. Fix it before certifying. Structured reflection capability for audit-grade compliance governance analysis. Forces the agent to inventory applicable regulations by jurisdiction and article, map each regulation to specific technical/procedural controls with implementation details, document audit-ready evidence artifacts with dates and coverage, quantify compliance gaps with severity and financial exposure, and assign named accountability with review cadence and escalation paths. Catches Unnamed Regulations (citing "industry standards" or "applicable regulations" without specific articles. GDPR Art. 17, SOC 2 CC6.1, PCI DSS Req. 3.4 are regulations, "best practices" is not), Unmapped Controls (claiming "we have security measures" without linking each control to the regulation it satisfies), Undocumented Evidence (asserting "we can demonstrate compliance" without naming audit artifacts, dates, and coverage periods), Unquantified Gaps (describing gaps as "minor risk" without severity scoring, fine exposure in currency, and remediation cost), and Unassigned Accountability (controls owned by "the team" or "shared responsibility". no named person, no review date, no escalation path). Call once per compliance assessment. Analytical support, not legal advice

Observed, not estimated

831ms average. Fast in production.

Compliance Governance Prover is checked daily against the live service.

Daily averagePeak 1038ms
Aug 20Today
Fastest day
656ms
Slowest day
1038ms
14-day trend
Slowing+29%

Connect your client

One URL. Every client.

Activate the Connector, copy your link, and paste it into the client you already use. 1 capability arrives ready to run.

Preview access · not provider authentication

The vk_preview_* token belongs to Vinkius preview infrastructure. It lets Claude discover and display the capabilities of Compliance Governance Prover, so you can see the experience inside your AI.

It does not authenticate your account with Compliance Governance Prover. Actions requiring credentials or live account data may not run until you activate the Connector and authorize the service.

Compliance Governance Prover Connector

You're all set. Choose your MCP client and follow the setup instructions.

Connector linkhttps://edge.vinkius.com/vk_preview_Nzf4diilmfbg9s5iBRSRTvZV5mMxnyFCTNWmhG81/mcp

Claude Desktop

Follow the steps below to connect in seconds.

  1. 1In Claude Desktop, open Settings → Connectors.
  2. 2Click “Add custom connector” and paste the connector link above as the remote MCP server URL.
  3. 3Click Add and start a new chat — Compliance Governance Prover capabilities are ready to use.
Configuration · claude_desktop_config.jsonCopy
{
  "mcpServers": {
    "compliance-governance-prover-mcp": {
      "url": "https://edge.vinkius.com/vk_preview_Nzf4diilmfbg9s5iBRSRTvZV5mMxnyFCTNWmhG81/mcp"
    }
  }
}
  • Claude
  • ChatGPT
  • Cursor
  • VS Code
  • Windsurf
  • Claude Code
  • JetBrains
  • Cline

Step-by-step instructions for each client are in the guide. How to connect

FAQ

Questions Compliance Governance Prover owners ask.

  • 01

    Does this replace legal advice?

    No. This is analytical support. it forces structured thinking about compliance. It does not certify compliance or replace qualified legal, regulatory, or compliance professionals. It catches structural gaps in reasoning, not legal deficiencies in controls.

  • 02

    What does it catch that a prompt doesn't?

    A prompt says 'be thorough about compliance.' The LLM says 'comply with GDPR and implement security controls'. and the prompt is satisfied. This capability rejects that because no article number was cited, no control was mapped, and no gap was scored. Capability calls are obligations. the LLM cannot skip the structural checks.

  • 03

    Which regulations does it support?

    Any regulation. it is framework-agnostic. GDPR, SOC 2, PCI DSS, HIPAA, ISO 27001, EU AI Act, CCPA, NIST. It does not validate whether your controls satisfy a regulation. it validates whether your analysis is structurally complete. The depth of your reasoning is what it enforces.