Bouncer — independently scanned and version-tracked by SaferSkills.
SaferSkills independently audited Bouncer (Agent Skill) and scored it 100/100 (green). The audit ran 55 deterministic rules across Security, Supply Chain, Maintenance, Transparency, and Community; it found 0 high-severity and 0 lower-severity findings. The full rule-by-rule trace and per-finding evidence are below. Free, methodology-open.
Findings & checks · 0 flagged
Every scanned point with the score it earned and what moved between them.
First recorded scan — no prior version to compare against.
The primary manifest — the file an agent reads to learn what this artifact does.
Static compliance-controls checker — the controls a regulation requires, verified in your code.
[nugehs.github.io/bouncer-web](https://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.
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.
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.
npx @nugehs/bouncer init
npx @nugehs/bouncer checkOr clone and run with plain Node (zero runtime dependencies, Node ≥ 18).
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)| 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".
bouncer.config.json:
{
"target": {
"adapter": "next",
"repo": "./my-app",
"roots": ["app", "src", "components"]
},
"packs": ["uk-osa", "uk-aadc"],
"packDirs": [],
"ignore": [],
"failOn": ["fail"]
}adapter — how regulation surfaces (sign-up, profile, chat, livestream…) maponto files for your stack.
Adapters shipped today: `next` (App Router) and `react-native`. That's it — if your stack isn't covered, an adapter is a single small file mapping surface aliases to file globs (seesrc/lib/adapters/next.js). Adapter PRs are very welcome —nuxt,sveltekit,remix,flutter,djangoare all natural candidates.
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"]).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": "(geo|location)[^\\n;,]{0,30}(default|initial)[^\\n;,]{0,15}(false|off)",
"in": ["profile", "any"],
"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.).
any, signup, auth, profile, chat, livestream, ugc, governance.
For a platform operating in Nigeria, three packs ship built-in:
& granular consent, data-subject rights, encryption, retention/erasure, NDPA localization, DPO designation, 72-hour breach plan, cross-border safeguards.
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.
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.
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"] } } }- run: npx @nugehs/bouncer checkFails the build when a required control goes missing — e.g. someone removes an age-gate or a report button from a UGC surface.
npm test # node --test — zero dependencies, nothing to installThe 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, and 22.
MIT
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.
More at segunolumbe.com. static analysis, never the model.
~30 seconds. Free. No account. Every finding cites a rule and a line of evidence.