Lintsure
Compliance readiness checks for code: EU AI Act, GDPR, SOC 2, ISO 27001. Local. Not legal advice.
제작자가 쓴 설명(영어 원문)
Explainable OFAC sanctions name screening against the SDN list. Runs locally, no API key.
이 세 가지는 절대 하나의 점수로 합치지 않아요. 의견, 측정, 인기는 서로 다른 것이니까요.
이 서버는 아직 쉬운 말로 된 요약을 쓰지 못했어요. 아래는 레지스트리에서 읽어 온 사실이에요.
쓰고 있는 AI 앱을 고른 다음 설정을 복사하세요.
OFACMATCH_DATA_DIR, OFACMATCH_REFRESH_HOURS어떤 앱을 쓰세요?
위에서 앱을 고르세요. 기억해 두었다가 다음부터는 버튼에 “…에 설치”라고 표시해요.
Claude Desktop → Settings → Developer → Edit Config를 열고 claude_desktop_config.json에 이 내용을 붙여 넣으세요
{
"mcpServers": {
"ofac-match": {
"command": "dnx",
"args": [
"OfacMatch.Mcp",
"--yes"
],
"env": {
"OFACMATCH_DATA_DIR": "your-value",
"OFACMATCH_REFRESH_HOURS": "your-value"
}
}
}
}터미널에서 이 명령어를 실행하세요
claude mcp add ofac-match --env OFACMATCH_DATA_DIR=your-value --env OFACMATCH_REFRESH_HOURS=your-value -- dnx OfacMatch.Mcp --yes실행하기 전에 빈 값을 채워 주세요.
프로젝트의 .cursor/mcp.json 또는 ~/.cursor/mcp.json에 붙여 넣으세요
{
"mcpServers": {
"ofac-match": {
"command": "dnx",
"args": [
"OfacMatch.Mcp",
"--yes"
],
"env": {
"OFACMATCH_DATA_DIR": "your-value",
"OFACMATCH_REFRESH_HOURS": "your-value"
}
}
}
}브라우저가 앱을 열지 물어본 다음, 앱이 설정을 보여 주고 확인을 요청해요. 키 값은 비워 두니 직접 입력하세요.
프로젝트의 .vscode/mcp.json에 붙여 넣으세요
{
"servers": {
"ofac-match": {
"type": "stdio",
"command": "dnx",
"args": [
"OfacMatch.Mcp",
"--yes"
],
"env": {
"OFACMATCH_DATA_DIR": "your-value",
"OFACMATCH_REFRESH_HOURS": "your-value"
}
}
}
}브라우저가 앱을 열지 물어본 다음, 앱이 설정을 보여 주고 확인을 요청해요. 키 값은 비워 두니 직접 입력하세요.
이 서버는 내 컴퓨터에서 실행되는데, ChatGPT는 인터넷에 있는 서버에만 연결할 수 있어요. 다른 앱을 고르세요.
선택한 앱은 이 기기의 쿠키에만 저장돼요. 계정은 필요 없어요.
이 설정은 제작자의 레지스트리 정보로 만들었어요. README와 다르면 README를 따르세요.
내 컴퓨터에서 실행돼요. 설치하면 AI 앱에 도구 목록이 나타나요.
누구나 볼 수 있는 정보를 점검했고, 코드는 읽지 않았어요. 해당하지 않는 항목은 개수에서 뺐어요. · 2026년 11월 8일 점검
레지스트리 이름이 GitHub 계정 krunalsolanki 기준으로 확인되었고, 이 계정이 저장소를 소유하고 있어요
아직 GitHub에서 이 저장소를 읽어 오지 않았어요
아직 GitHub에서 이 저장소를 읽어 오지 않았어요
내 컴퓨터에서 실행되는 서버라 인터넷 엔드포인트가 없어요
내 컴퓨터에서 실행되며, 대신 로컬 설정을 사용해요
내 컴퓨터에서 실행돼요. 도구 목록은 인터넷 엔드포인트가 있는 서버에서만 읽을 수 있어요
레지스트리에서 이 카테고리의 활성 서버 전체와 비교했어요. 스타는 게시자가 저장소를 소유한 경우에만 세요.
해당하는 기본 점검 1개 중 1개를 통과했어요. 코드는 읽지 않았어요. 키나 토큰을 넣기 전에 서버가 어떤 권한을 요구하는지 확인하고, 꼭 필요한 권한만 있는 키를 쓰세요.
레지스트리에 필수 키가 나와 있지 않아요. 다만 처음 쓸 때 로그인을 요구하는 서버도 있어요.
내 컴퓨터에서 실행돼요. AI 앱이 필요할 때 실행하고, 데이터는 제작자의 서버를 거치지 않아요(서버 자체가 온라인 서비스를 호출하는 경우는 제외).
GitHub 저장소는 마지막으로 – 변경됐고, 최신 버전(2.0.0)은 3일 전 레지스트리에 올라왔어요.
Claude Desktop, Claude Code, Cursor, VS Code처럼 MCP를 지원하는 앱에서 쓸 수 있어요. 내 컴퓨터에 .NET도 있어야 해요.
같은 카테고리에는: Lintsure, INDEC Argentina (no oficial), EcuDataMCP
같은 카테고리에서 다른 제작자가 만든 서버예요. 스타 순으로 정렬했어요.
카드 보는 법:★ GitHub 스타i세 기둥: 리뷰 · 점검 · 사용 정도i업데이트 = 최신 버전을 레지스트리에 공개한 날i
Compliance readiness checks for code: EU AI Act, GDPR, SOC 2, ISO 27001. Local. Not legal advice.
Argentina's official statistics (INDEC): inflation, wages, poverty, trade, population. No signup.
Ecuador's open government data for AI assistants: CKAN, SRI, BCE, INEC, Supercias, SERCOP and more.
제작자의 저장소에서 쓰인 그대로 가져왔어요. PopNx MCP가 검토하거나 보증한 내용이 아니에요. HTML, 이미지, 스크립트는 제거했어요. 링크를 누르면 이 사이트를 벗어나요.
OFAC sanctions name screening for .NET that tells you *why* a name matched.
[Try it in your browser](https://krunalsolanki.github.io/ofac-match/): no install, and the names you type never leave your browser.
I spent ten years building title and mortgage systems at First American, including OFAC screening that stops a loan from going to someone on the Treasury's sanctions list. Name matching sounds simple until a compliance analyst asks why a name was flagged, or why a misspelled one wasn't.
Many teams still search OFAC's website by hand or rely on screening logic they can't see inside. I wanted something small and open: load the official list, score names the way OFAC describes in its own FAQ, and show the reasoning behind every score.
OfacMatch downloads the Specially Designated Nationals (SDN) list from OFAC, screens names against it, and gives each potential match a score from 0 to 100, the same scale OFAC's search tool uses. Every match comes with an explanation: which name or alias it hit, and how each part of the name paired up.
It handles the messy parts of real names: accents, LAST, First ordering, apostrophes and hyphens, titles like "Dr.", company endings like LLC or LTD (even misspelled), and aliases. If you pass a year of birth or country that disagrees with the listed record, the match is flagged rather than hidden, because that call belongs to a person.
It has no dependencies, runs inside your own process (names never leave your systems), and works on modern .NET as well as .NET Framework 4.7.2+.
I measured it on the real list rather than guessing, on names it was never tuned on: at a threshold of 85 it finds all 4,235 realistic variations of listed names in a held-out test, and 99.6% of 2,160 harder ones such as a wrong first letter, a nickname or an extra middle name. It is also compared with eight standard name-matching methods. The results below have the details, including where a simpler method does better.
Version 2.0 changes how a searched name with extra parts is scored; see the changelog. Feedback, bug reports and name variations that score badly are very welcome.
OfacMatch helps you screen; it doesn't make compliance decisions and isn't legal advice. A score says how alike two names are written, not whether two records are the same person. Pick your threshold from your own risk assessment and have someone review every potential match. More in Using OfacMatch responsibly.
dotnet add package OfacMatch
using OfacMatch.Data;
using OfacMatch.Screening;
using var http = new HttpClient(); var list = await SanctionsList.DownloadAsync(http, saveToDirectory: "ofac-data");
var screener = new SanctionsScreener(list, new ScreeningOptions { MinScore = 85 });
foreach (var match in screener.Screen("Aymen Zawahri")) { Console.WriteLine(match.Explain()); }
Output against the SDN list published 27 October 2026:
Score 95.8 via NameParts against Primary name "AL ZAWAHIRI, Dr. Ayman"
Entry 2676: AL ZAWAHIRI, Dr. Ayman (Individual; programs: SDGT) Full-name score 84.5; name-parts score 95.8 AYMEN -> AYMAN: similarity 0.907, sounds alike ZAWAHRI -> ZAWAHIRI: similarity 0.946, sounds alike
How scoring works walks through this example step by step.
var request = new ScreeningRequest("John Michael Doe")
{ Type = EntryType.Individual, // a borrower is a person, so skip companies and vessels YearOfBirth = 1971, // flags matches whose listed dates of birth disagree Country = "United States", // flags matches whose listed addresses are all elsewhere };
var matches = screener.Screen(request);
var list = SanctionsList.LoadFromDirectory("ofac-data"); // SDN.CSV, ALT.CSV, ADD.CSV
OFAC updates the list often. Reload it at least daily, and screen against the current list before every decision.
OfacMatch.Mcp lets Claude, GitHub Copilot and other MCP clients screen names, look up SDN entries and explain scores. It runs locally and needs no API key.
Claude Desktop: download the extension for your computer from the latest release (ofac-match-windows.mcpb or ofac-match-mac-*.mcpb) and double-click it. No .NET or config file needed.
Claude Code plugin (adds the server plus a skill for reporting results responsibly; needs the .NET 10 SDK):
/plugin install ofac-match --marketplace krunalsolanki/ofac-match
Claude Code and other clients (needs the .NET 10 SDK):
claude mcp add ofac-match -- dnx OfacMatch.Mcp --yes
Tools: screen_name, screen_names, get_sanctions_entry, compare_names, get_list_info. See the MCP server guide for other clients and settings.
dotnet run --project samples/OfacMatch.Cli -- "Aymen Zawahri" --min 85 --yob 1951
OfacMatch was improved on a development set of names, then frozen and tested once on a separate held-out set: 600 other listed parties (400 individuals, 200 companies) and 3,000 ordinary names from a vocabulary never used during development, against the SDN list published 27 October 2026. The evaluation protocol explains the rules.
| Threshold | Variations found (4,235) | Harder variations found (2,160) | Two-part ordinary names that alert | Three-part ordinary names that alert |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 80 | 100.0% | 99.9% | 75.7% | 51.0% |
| 85 | 100.0% | 99.6% | 37.5% | 10.3% |
| 90 | 100.0% | 98.4% | 10.2% | 2.2% |
| 95 | 99.6% | 83.4% | 2.1% | 0.0% |
Compared with other methods. The same cases were screened with eight standard methods, including Levenshtein, Jaro-Winkler, RapidFuzz-style token ratios and trigram TF-IDF (full comparison). To compare them fairly, each method gets the threshold at which the same share of ordinary names alerts. The strongest simple method, a token set ratio, found slightly more of the harder variations than OfacMatch (98.9% against 96.7% when 5% of ordinary names alert). OfacMatch raised clearly fewer alerts on names that share a first name with a listed person, such as "Ayman Smith" (11.9% against 16.4%), and it explains every score. For a review team, fewer alerts and a reason for each one is usually worth more than the last two points of recall, but that trade-off is yours to make.
Three things stand out in these numbers. Screening on a name alone alerts a lot: at 85, more than a third of ordinary two-part names look like *something* on the list. Date of birth and country are what let a reviewer clear those quickly. Moving the threshold from 85 to 90 cut those alerts by about three quarters while still finding every variation and 98.4% of the harder ones, so the threshold deserves a deliberate choice rather than a default. And since 2.0, a listed two-part name inside a longer searched name scores high, so three-part names alert more often at 85 than in 0.1.2 (10.3% against 3.3%).
You can re-run it yourself on the development set:
dotnet run -c Release --project eval/OfacMatch.Evaluation -- --data ofac-data --out docs/evaluation.md
dotnet run -c Release --project eval/OfacMatch.Evaluation -- --data ofac-data --baselines --out docs/baselines.md
| Guide | What it covers |
|---|---|
| Why OfacMatch | Benefits and comparison with other options |
| How scoring works | Every step, with a worked example |
| API and configuration reference | Types, options and defaults |
| Using OfacMatch responsibly | Thresholds, review, record keeping, limits |
| Evaluation protocol | How the development and held-out sets are kept apart, and how settings were chosen |
| Held-out results and comparison | Results on names never used during development, and against eight standard methods |
| Development results, comparison and tuning | The set used while improving the method |
| MCP server | Using OfacMatch from AI assistants |
Things I'd like to work on, roughly in order:
dotnet tool packageIf you'd like to help with any of these, or have a case that scores badly, open an issue. CONTRIBUTING.md has the details.
If you use OfacMatch in research or a write-up, please cite the paper:
Solanki, K. (2026). *Explainable Name Screening Against the OFAC SDN List: An Open Implementation and Reproducible Evaluation* (preprint). Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.23930926
@misc{solanki2026ofacmatch,
author = {Solanki, Krunal}, title = {Explainable Name Screening Against the {OFAC} {SDN} List: An Open Implementation and Reproducible Evaluation}, year = {2
앞부분만 보여 드려요. 나머지는 저장소에서 읽어 보세요