AI governance from engineering evidence

Govern the AI in your software. From evidence.

The AI your teams build, the AI your code calls, and the AI that writes your code: inventoried from your repos, classified under the EU AI Act, graded against ISO 42001. Where the evidence is missing it says Not Verified.

Talk to us about AI governance Get your ShipReady Score

14-day trial for scores. AI governance is on Control and up.

AI system · EU AI Act + ISO 42001

Resume Ranker · high-risk · conformity: blocked

NVNot Verified

Shadow AI (undeclared SDKs)3 REPOS · 0 REGISTEREDfound in declared dependencies, not in a questionnaire

Risk classification (EU AI Act)HIGH-RISKAnnex III use-case; declared tier reconciled, not under-classified

Human oversight (Art. 14)METdesignated overseer on file for the high-risk system

FRIA, fundamental rights (Art. 27)NOT VERIFIEDdeployer assessment not on file yet, we refuse to guess

shadow AI found in the repo · an absent assessment reads Not Verified · illustrative

Coverage map

Six layers of AI governance. Here is exactly where we stand.

The map every CISO and general counsel uses. We claim the layers our evidence reaches and say so where it does not. A vendor that claims all six is guessing on at least one.

01 · Adopt

Strong

AI Inventory

An org register plus shadow-AI detection from the SDKs your repos declare, a deterministic EU AI Act risk tier for each system (or review required, never a guess), owners for every high-risk system, and AI-BOM export.

02 · Adopt

Partial

Responsible Deployment

Third-party and deployer duties, AI supply chain reconciled against your vendor register, change control and review-as-control from your repos. Architecture and model-choice guidance is not ours.

03 · Defend

Not us, partners

AI Security & Access

Prompt protection, tool and MCP controls, and runtime access enforcement are runtime products. We hold the access and secrets evidence from your cloud and repos, and we name who does the rest.

04 · Defend

Governance of testing

Testing & Monitoring

Was each high-risk system evaluated for accuracy, robustness and bias, and is that evaluation still current? Post-market monitoring and incident duties tracked. We show the test happened; we do not run it.

05 · Govern

Real

Human Oversight

Human-oversight artifacts graded, every proposed fix waits for a human on the approve button, AI-written code passes review-as-control, a named human submits every filing.

06 · Govern

Strongest

Compliance & Audit

EU AI Act, ISO 42001 and NIST AI RMF among 23 frameworks, Art. 73 incident deadlines, conformity declarations, the auditor portal and trust pack, an append-only audit trail. Readiness indicators, never certified.

Why it matters

Governance verdicts from the engineering estate, not a declared register.

Most tools govern from a spreadsheet someone filled in. ShipReady reads the repos and cloud you already run, finds the models, SDKs and agents actually in use (including the shadow AI nobody registered), and grades the evidence behind each one.

Declaring a high-risk system “minimal” is the central EU AI Act failure. The classifier maps each use-case to its tier from the Act's own taxonomy and flags under-classification. An unmapped use-case is review-required, never a guessed tier. An absent artifact stays Not Verified, never a fabricated pass.

Who it's for

Built for the people who have to answer for the AI.

If you answer the board

CISO and General Counsel

Every AI system inventoried and classified, every obligation graded from evidence, every gap named. Not Verified where the evidence is missing.

If you ship the software

CTO and VP Engineering

The AI your code calls and the AI that writes your code, with the review gate and the security cap that go with it. Same connections, no new questionnaire.

If the AI Act applies

Teams facing EU AI Act deadlines

Know which of your systems are high-risk, which obligations are already in force, and whether a system is cleared to deploy, before a regulator asks.

Customer zero

The platform you'd buy is the platform that built it.

ShipReady is built by AI agents under one founder's direction, and the whole company is governed by its own product. Its maturity is scored by a repeatable rater whose number moves only when a real capability lands with a locking test, never inflated to look good.

That is the discipline behind the pitch: we hold ourselves to the same Not Verified rule we sell, so the honesty is a property of the platform, not a promise on a slide.

Customer zero · measured, not marketing

113

real defects found by AI agents and fixed, test-first

~2,600

adversarial + property tests written and run against itself

fabricated findings. Every fix verified before it shipped

down / hold

the only direction a fix can move a score, never up dishonestly

Govern your AI before a regulator asks you to.

A verdict you can defend, or an honest Not Verified.

Talk to us about AI governance

AI governance is on Control and up. Governance readiness is an internal indicator, not a certification.