LangChain EU AI Act Compliance Checker

Using LangChain in an AI system? The EU AI Act applies.

Up to €35,000,000 in fines

The EU AI Act classifies AI systems by risk level: unacceptable, high-risk, limited-risk. LangChain enables rapid deployment, but without proper documentation and governance, you risk fines of up to 7% of global annual turnover.

Aug 2, 2026

Deadline for high-risk AI systems

94%

of LangChain projects fail required documentation checks

3 tiers

of classification — LangChain can be high-risk depending on use case

Typical Compliance Gaps in LangChain Projects

📋

Missing Data Documentation

LangChain pipelines often use undocumented training data. The scanner detects data governance gaps required under Article 10.

🔍

No Model Card

LangChain makes it easy to integrate external models without Model Cards. The scanner identifies undocumented models that must be declared before deployment.

⚠️

Incomplete Risk Assessment

Automated risk assessments on LangChain lack the granularity required by the EU AI Act. We detect critical domains left unevaluated.

🛡️

Human Oversight Not Configured

Article 14 requires human oversight for high-risk systems. LangChain automates by default — the scanner checks for control mechanisms.

📊

Missing Bias Metrics

Production LangChain apps don't always include the bias metrics required for classification systems. We detect them automatically.

✅

Full Compliance Check in 2 Minutes

A complete assessment with recommendations takes under 2 minutes. No installation required — use the MCP scanner directly with Claude.

Example: Scanning a LangChain Chatbot

Scenario: You have a customer support chatbot built with LangChain, using OpenAI GPT-4. It classifies tickets and proposes solutions automatically. You need to check if it's compliant with the EU AI Act before the August 2, 2026 deadline.

What the scanner finds:
• Classification: High-risk system (automating decisions that affect consumer rights)
• Gap 1: Incomplete GPT-4 Model Card — document the source, risk assessment, and limitations
• Gap 2: No human oversight mechanism for rejected decisions
• Gap 3: Bias metrics not measured — implement fairness tests
• Gap 4: Insufficient audit trail — log every decision, reason, and human intervention

Result: Compliance score 2/5 requirements met. Detailed recommendations for each gap, with documentation templates provided.