ai-safe2-framework
v3.1 open-sourceThe Universal Governance, Risk, Compliance (GRC) Operating System with Integrated Security for Agentic AI, Non-Human Identities, and Swarm Governance. AI SAFE² + AI Sovereignty Maturity Model (AISM), NEXUS-A2A Protocol, FORGE-Act, Marshal Plan for AI [Dual License: MIT + CC-BY-SA]
Summary
ai-safe2-framework is an open-source GRC framework, dual-licensed under MIT and CC BY-SA 4.0, that defines controls for governing agentic AI systems and mapping them to compliance standards such as ISO 42001, NIST AI RMF, and the EU AI Act. It ships as a set of specification documents, control mappings, and enforcement scripts you drop into a project or agent workspace, with a CLI for generating compliance reports and setting failure thresholds by tier, rather than a hosted service. It targets compliance and AI governance teams working with agentic or multi-agent ("swarm") systems who need audit evidence rather than a code library. Its README frames it as a comparison point for existing GRC standards rather than naming a specific competing tool, positioning itself as a universal mapping layer across 32 frameworks.
The Universal Governance, Risk, Compliance (GRC) Operating System with Integrated Security for Agentic AI, Non-Human Identities, and Swarm Governance. AI SAFE² + AI Sovereignty Maturity Model (AISM), NEXUS-A2A Protocol, FORGE-Act, Marshal Plan for AI [Dual License: MIT + CC-BY-SA]
What ai-safe2-framework answers
Which agent platforms does it actually have enforcement code for, versus just controls on paper?
the concrete detection and blocking logic ships for Lovable subagent workflows specifically; other platforms get the specification and control mappings but not a matching enforcement package
Does adding this to a project require rewriting how agents call tools or memory?
no, the enforcement is a drop-in workspace knowledge file plus a file-access gate that intercepts path lists before subagents read them, so existing agent code is not restructured
How do I know the control set is actually being enforced and not just documented?
a smoke test runs all named controls and reports a pass count, so you can verify enforcement before relying on it in an environment
Can I get audit evidence for a specific regulation instead of the whole 32-framework map?
yes, at least one paragraph-by-paragraph mapping exists for a named regulation with an attestation document, showing the level of detail to expect if your framework needs the same treatment
How strict is "compliance" here — is it a fixed pass/fail or something I can tune per team?
failure thresholds are set by tier, so a stricter group can fail a run at a much higher score than a team using the baseline tier
Examples
Command line
No option matches that search.
| option | found in | since | description |
|---|
No option matches that search.
Values are placeholders taken from each option’s declared default. Nothing is executed here — the output shown is a recording of a run that already happened.
Release history
- v3.1
AI SAFE² v3.1 adds 6 new MCP controls, three enforcement planes, protocol-independent persistence vocabulary, 12 new scanner rules, and a machine-readable manifest entry point for agents and bots.
└──▷ GET THIS VERSION$ git clone --branch v3.1 https://github.com/CyberStrategyInstitute/ai-safe2-framework.git # already have the repo? check out this version: $ git checkout v3.1
- ›Adds
ai-safe2.manifest.jsonandAGENTS.mdas first-class machine entry points, exposing framework version, component versions, normative paths, control counts, enforcement planes, persistence vocabulary, conformance boundaries, and machine-readable datasets so agents and compliance bots can consume the framework without scraping prose. - ›Adds
skills/mcp/data/mcp-profile-v3.1.jsonas a machine-readable MCP profile covering all 19 CP.5.MCP controls. - ›Adds
skills/mcp/data/ai-safe2-controls-v3.0.jsonas the 161-control core dataset for automated consumption. - ›Adds six new CP.5.MCP controls: MCP-14 (Extension Capability Negotiation), MCP-15 (Header and Body Assertion Integrity), MCP-16 (State Handle Binding and Lifecycle), MCP-17 (MRTR Round-Trip Integrity and Replay Resistance), MCP-18 (Catalog Cache Integrity and Provenance Revalidation), and MCP-19 (Authorization Chain Integrity, intended-resource/audience binding, and SSRF boundaries), bringing the MCP profile to 19 controls.
- ›Formalizes a protocol-independent persistence vocabulary with four canonical values —
request,handle_scoped,durable, andswarm_shared— replacing protocol-owned session language at the governance boundary.
+7 moreshow less
- ›Expands the scanner rule registry to 64 rules by adding 12 new grouped CP.5.MCP v3.1 rules covering the new and re-anchored MCP controls.
- ›Re-anchors MCP-4, MCP-7, MCP-8, MCP-11, and MCP-13 from protocol session state to framework-owned governance state (verified principals, capability grants, provenance baselines, delegation chains, governed state handles) so controls survive protocol changes such as MCP
2026-07-28. - ›Establishes three explicit enforcement planes — north-south (agent to model provider), east-west (agent to agent), and agent-to-tool (agent to MCP server or tool) — with the rule that a successful control result on one plane does not automatically establish coverage on another.
- ›Introduces an explicit MCP-19 conformance boundary: a deployment must evidence intended-resource, audience, or equivalent binding before protected dispatch; opaque bearer-token possession alone does not satisfy the control.
- ›Adds MCP
2026-07-28as the primary binding for CP.5.MCP, with a twelve-month legacy compatibility window for MCP2025-11-25;server/discoveris optional under the primary binding and its absence is not treated as a scanner failure. - ›Scopes the Challenge Lab by enforcement plane — maturity, framework/profile conformance, the plane exercised, and required evidence — adding v3.1 MCP cases covering header/body desynchronization, catalog/schema drift, replay, audience/resource confusion, endpoint impersonation, SSRF, and legacy state-handle misuse.
- ›Adds a dedicated Agent Discovery and Manifest Integrity CI gate that verifies manifest claims against the repository, failing on incorrect claims and broken paths.
└──▷ BREAKING ON UPGRADE- !Controls MCP-4, MCP-7, MCP-8, MCP-11, and MCP-13 now bind to framework-owned governance state rather than protocol session state; implementations that anchored those controls to MCP session constructs must be re-implemented against the new bindings.
- ›Adds