3 ms·

Show HN: Open-source KYC plugin for Claude – 95min→27min, £85K→£240/year

4 points by vyayasan 8mo ago

Hi HN, Just launched an open-source compliance plugin for Claude Cowork after seeing fintech teams pay £60K+ for platforms that orchestrate free public data. UK fintech pilot (30 days, 5 analysts): • 95 minutes → 27 minutes per case • £85K annual platform cost → £240/year (Claude Pro) • Uses only free data: OFAC, UN, EU, Companies House, OpenSanctions 17 mandatory human-in-the-loop checkpoints. No auto-approvals. Deterministic risk scoring (MLR 2017 formulas). MIT licensed. Launching today because Claude just announced Cowork plugin updates: https://www.linkedin.com/posts/claude-ai_were-introducing-updates-to-plugins-in-cowork-activity-7299044809629417472-gG3f https://www.linkedin.com/posts/claude-ai_were-introducing-up... Testing if foundation models can replace compliance middleware for standard workflows (~70% of cases). Demo slides: https://github.com/vyayasan/kyc-analyst/blob/main/docs/demo-slides.pdf https://github.com/vyayasan/kyc-analyst/blob/main/docs/demo-... GitHub: https://github.com/vyayasan/kyc-analyst https://github.com/vyayasan/kyc-analyst Happy to answer questions about LLMs in regulated environments.

deleted 8mo ago
[deleted]
vyayasan 8mo ago
Author here. Quick context on the pilot: 30-day test with 5 compliance analysts at UK fintech doing standard individual onboarding (Know Your Customer checks). Before: 95 minutes per case (manual searches across OFAC, UN, EU sanctions lists, Companies House, adverse media, PEP databases) After: 27 minutes per case (Claude orchestrates the searches, analyst reviews at 17 mandatory checkpoints) Key architectural decision: NO auto-approvals. Every decision requires explicit analyst approval + notes. Legal team spent 3 weeks reviewing before approving pilot. Main concern was audit trail - solved with immutable markdown logs. Demo slides show the full workflow: https://github.com/vyayasan/kyc-analyst/blob/main/docs/demo-slides.pdf https://github.com/vyayasan/kyc-analyst/blob/main/docs/demo-... Happy to answer questions about: - The 17 stagegates - How risk scoring works (deterministic, not black box) - Regulatory requirements (FCA/MLR 2017) - What works vs what doesn't Built this to test if foundation models can commoditize compliance middleware.
felix089 8mo ago
This looks interesting, what's your goal with this project?
- vyayasan 8mo ago
  Thanks for asking! Honestly, I'm testing a thesis more than building a product. The thesis: If foundation models can reason through structured workflows, a lot of "middleware" categories (compliance, GRC, back-office automation) are just orchestrating free public data + applying published formulas. The "platform" becomes commoditized. For KYC specifically: - Data is free (OFAC, UN, EU sanctions lists, Companies House, etc.) - Formulas are published (MLR 2017, FinCEN CDD rules) - Workflows are well-documented So what are teams paying £60K/year for? Orchestration + audit trail. If Claude can orchestrate and markdown can audit.. the economics shift dramatically. Goals: 1. Prove open source can compete with commercial platforms (for standard workflows) 2. Make compliance accessible to smaller teams who can't afford £60K licenses 3. Test if this pattern applies to other regulated categories (legal, accounting, HR compliance) Not building a company or raising money. Just want to see if expertise-as-code can disrupt vertical SaaS in regulated industries. What do you think? Does this pattern apply to other categories you've seen?

4 points by vyayasan 8mo ago

deleted 8mo ago

[deleted]

vyayasan 8mo ago

Author here. Quick context on the pilot: 30-day test with 5 compliance analysts at UK fintech doing standard individual onboarding (Know Your Customer checks). Before: 95 minutes per case (manual searches across OFAC, UN, EU sanctions lists, Companies House, adverse media, PEP databases) After: 27 minutes per case (Claude orchestrates the searches, analyst reviews at 17 mandatory checkpoints) Key architectural decision: NO auto-approvals. Every decision requires explicit analyst approval + notes. Legal team spent 3 weeks reviewing before approving pilot. Main concern was audit trail - solved with immutable markdown logs. Demo slides show the full workflow: https://github.com/vyayasan/kyc-analyst/blob/main/docs/demo-slides.pdf https://github.com/vyayasan/kyc-analyst/blob/main/docs/demo-... Happy to answer questions about: - The 17 stagegates - How risk scoring works (deterministic, not black box) - Regulatory requirements (FCA/MLR 2017) - What works vs what doesn't Built this to test if foundation models can commoditize compliance middleware.

felix089 8mo ago

This looks interesting, what's your goal with this project?

vyayasan 8mo ago
Thanks for asking! Honestly, I'm testing a thesis more than building a product. The thesis: If foundation models can reason through structured workflows, a lot of "middleware" categories (compliance, GRC, back-office automation) are just orchestrating free public data + applying published formulas. The "platform" becomes commoditized. For KYC specifically: - Data is free (OFAC, UN, EU sanctions lists, Companies House, etc.) - Formulas are published (MLR 2017, FinCEN CDD rules) - Workflows are well-documented So what are teams paying £60K/year for? Orchestration + audit trail. If Claude can orchestrate and markdown can audit.. the economics shift dramatically. Goals: 1. Prove open source can compete with commercial platforms (for standard workflows) 2. Make compliance accessible to smaller teams who can't afford £60K licenses 3. Test if this pattern applies to other regulated categories (legal, accounting, HR compliance) Not building a company or raising money. Just want to see if expertise-as-code can disrupt vertical SaaS in regulated industries. What do you think? Does this pattern apply to other categories you've seen?