[HN Gopher] Show HN: EuConform - Offline-first EU AI Act complia...
___________________________________________________________________
Show HN: EuConform - Offline-first EU AI Act compliance tool (open
source)
I built this as a personal open-source project to explore how EU AI
Act requirements can be translated into concrete, inspectable
technical checks. The core idea is local-first compliance: - risk
classification (Articles 5-15, incl. prohibited use cases) - bias
evaluation using CrowS-Pairs - automatic Annex IV-oriented PDF
reports - no cloud services or external APIs (browser-based +
Ollama) I'm especially interested in feedback on whether this kind
of technical framing of AI regulation makes sense in real-world
projects.
Author : hiepler
Score : 44 points
Date : 2026-01-09 19:11 UTC (3 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (github.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (github.com)
| dmitrygr wrote:
| "EuConform" <- I love the name. Not sure if you meant it as it
| reads, but I love it.
| petcat wrote:
| "you conform" is how it reads to me. which leaves a bad taste
| given the nature of it.
| hiepler wrote:
| Fair point
|
| The name is meant literally as "EU conformity" (EU +
| conform), not "you conform".
|
| I was aiming for something that signals regulatory alignment
| without sounding legal-heavy, but I get how it can read
| differently.
| dabedee wrote:
| Hey there! I find the idea super relevant and I think compliance
| tools that can be used like this are the way forward.
|
| Given the timeline of the commits and some other tells (e.g.
| using forwardRef despite using React 19 which deprecates it), it
| seems like you used coding assistants extensively. That's a
| personal preference, but I would mention that explicitly (if
| that's the case), if only for intellectual honesty.
| hiepler wrote:
| Thanks, appreciate the thoughtful feedback.
|
| You're right that the commit history doesn't fully reflect the
| raw development process. I did some cleanup and squashing
| before publishing, since this is an open-source project and I
| wanted the history to be readable and reviewable.
|
| I do use coding assistants as part of my workflow, mostly for
| iteration speed and boilerplate, but the architectural
| decisions, evaluation logic, and compliance mapping are
| intentional and manually reasoned through.
|
| Happy to clarify any part of the implementation or assumptions
| if something looks odd.
| 9dev wrote:
| Hard disagree from me there. I don't care what language a tool
| is built with, I'm neither interested in their choice of code
| editor, nor whether they use AI in the process or not. It's a
| means to an end, not some flaw to be ashamed of and forced to
| disclose.
|
| If something gets built with AI or not at all, that's a net
| positive as far as I'm concerned.
| hash872 wrote:
| Glad to see future builders focusing on bureaucratic compliance
| first & foremost. It's a stirring vision. This is a great
| European VC on Twitter you may want to tag about your project, he
| invests solely in GDPR-compliant European tech
| https://x.com/compliantvc
| tpetry wrote:
| You know that this is a parody account?
| regnodon wrote:
| I'm pretty sure you're replying to a comment which itself was
| supposed to be a parody. The "focusing on bureaucratic
| compliance first & foremost" seems to be something of a tell.
| agentifysh wrote:
| If you are not European, it doesn't seem very attractive for non-
| Europeans to deal with all the anti-business regulations.
|
| Also just from the data that has been shared with me
| chargebacks/complaints/nitpicking/stinginess alone from this
| region seems to demoralizing compared to Americans/East Asia
|
| We have this idealized view of a rich affluent "Europe" born from
| Marshall Plan but that certainly is not the actual reality today.
| troupo wrote:
| > non-Europeans to deal with all the anti-business regulations.
|
| These are not "anti-business regulations".
| pyrale wrote:
| > all the anti-business regulations.
|
| Regulation is made to protect customers. Consumer trust is
| favorable to business in the long run.
|
| It's really sad that US technologists confuse business and
| grift these days. Maybe it's related to their main customers
| being VCs, and the people using service just being props needed
| to have the line go up.
| Kim_Bruning wrote:
| The EU started out as an economic union. They are still very
| capitalist. Which means they protect consumers, promote fair
| competition, and encourage trade between member states. They're
| neither mercantilist nor plutocratic.
| ankit219 wrote:
| Calling it "Conform" is very 1984esque. There is also a 2025 book
| (a dystopian romance) called the same:
| https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/223239535-conform
| lawlessone wrote:
| TIL 1984-esque is when i can't use my customers data to train
| bots.
| rvz wrote:
| What innovation do we have here from the EU? Its official name
| should be:
|
| _The Official EU AI Act Compliance Regulation Conformance Tool
| MMXXVI v1.0_
|
| If you are one patch version behind, you are "non-complaint" and
| you will get fined immediately.
|
| We <3 EU!
| bigyabai wrote:
| This but unironically. Snuff Google, Microsoft and Apple with
| the passion of a thousand suns and never let their ashes rise
| again to threaten fair people.
|
| Signed, an American who is fed up with adslop and saasslop
| propaganda. Do not reward immoral megacorps.
| pennaMan wrote:
| in this case the best compliance is non compliance
|
| degrowth decels are a scourge
| troyvit wrote:
| A scourge to what, exactly?
| sothatsit wrote:
| Human flourishing
| pennaMan wrote:
| To the human race. The only reason we're not living miserable
| animal lives is because of technological progress. Wanting to
| slow that down means you are anti human.
| wizzwizz4 wrote:
| The industrial revolution created slums. _Social_ progress
| made those go away - and I 'm sure the factory owners
| decried it just as vehemently.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2026-01-09 23:00 UTC)