Reglynn turns the EU AI Act into a decision you can act on.

Most founders don't ignore the AI Act — they can't tell whether it applies to them. Finding out costs €300/hour, and free tools hand you a risk tier with no reasoning behind it.

Reglynn asks 32 questions about what your AI system does, who it affects and how it's governed, then produces a structured gap report against the current text of Regulation (EU) 2024/1689, as amended by the June 2026 Omnibus.

What the report covers

• Your role in the value chain — provider, deployer, distributor or importer. This decides most of your obligations, and it's the question founders most often answer wrong. Deployers owe Article 26 only: no conformity assessment, no CE marking, no EU database registration.
• GPAI / Article 53 — whether fine-tuning a foundation model has quietly made you a model provider, and a plain statement when it hasn't.
• The Article 6(3) exemption — whether a system inside an Annex III high-risk area is actually exempt. Skipping this is why teams budget for conformity assessments they may never owe.
• Obligations with correct deadlines — dated against the post-Omnibus text, not the pre-Omnibus dates most published guidance still carries.
• A prioritised fix list, GDPR overlaps, and what you're already doing right.

What it isn't

A structured self-assessment — not certification, not legal advice. Reglynn is not a notified body. The report tells you where you likely stand and exactly what to verify with a qualified advisor, so that conversation starts at question 10 instead of question 1.

How it's made Your answers are analysed by an AI system against Reglynn's own question set and risk logic, then reviewed before delivery. Reglynn is itself a Limited Risk AI system under Article 50, and publishes its own self-assessment at reglynn.eu/our-ai-act-status.

One-time payment. No subscription, no account, no sales call.

CodeHerald provides a new way to keep track of your code review queue, grouped by your next action needed.

When would you use CodeHerald?

• You work in a team that does code reviews.
• Your team receives ad-hoc code review requests via multiple channels: DMs, emails, bookmarks of filtered lists.
• Your team sometimes loses track of small pull requests, delaying them days.
• Your team find ad-hoc code review requests distracting, but cannot put a finger on why.
• Your team tried different strategies to improve code review process, and none of them felt right.

If any of the above is true, CodeHerald will help you.

What can CodeHerald do for you?

CodeHerald groups pull requests by next action: must review, needs an update, can be merged. It allows you to replace slack, emails, filters, and browser bookmarks with one single page that you can open at a glance and decide which PR to tackle next.