Maps what your policies actually say to what the framework asks for
Framework readiness is mostly document comparison: what do our policies already say, what does the standard require, and what is genuinely missing. It is clerical work that consumes weeks of expensive time.
This agent does the comparison against your real policies, read from your knowledge base and quoted. For each requirement it reports whether your documents address it, partially address it, or say nothing — with the passage that does, and the document it came from.
The distinction it holds firmly is between what is written, what was asserted, and what is absent. A control someone described in a meeting is not a documented control, and an auditor will say so. It reports gaps and the wording that would close them; it does not certify anything, and it does not tell you that you are compliant, because nobody can conclude that from documents alone.
The clerical majority of readiness work.
Before an auditor tells you, and while it is cheap to fix.
Every claim of coverage points at the passage behind it.
Quotes the passage covering each requirement, with the document and section it came from.
Three different states. A control described in a meeting is not a documented control, and an auditor will say so.
The real output of a gap analysis is the gap list, and it is specific.
Draft policy language for each gap, for a person to adapt and adopt.
Where two of your own policies say different things — a finding auditors reliably catch.
It reports coverage. Compliance is not concludable from documents.
This agent runs server-side through the PROMIVO runtime. Each run is logged step by step and every tool call is permission-checked before it executes.
Demo dataIllustrative sample output, abridged.
{
"framework": "Customer security requirements",
"requirements": [
{
"text": "Access is reviewed periodically.",
"reference": "A.8"
}
]
}{
"coverage": [
{
"status": "partial",
"reference": "A.8",
"draftWording": "Draft for adaptation: \"All access rights are reviewed at least quarterly by the system owner, and the review is recorded.\"",
"quotedPolicy": "\"Access rights are reviewed when an employee changes role or leaves.\"",
"whatIsMissing": "The requirement asks for periodic review. Your policy covers event-driven review only, so an account nobody changed is never re-examined.",
"sourceDocument": "Access Control Policy v3 — section 5"
}
],
"escalate": false,
"disclaimer": "A comparison of your written policies against the supplied requirements. Not a compliance opinion, not a readiness assessment, and not evidence that any control operates.",
"policiesFound": true,
"contradictions": [],
"unownedPolicies": [
"Access Control Policy v3 names no owner and no review date."
]
}No integrations required.
Find the gaps before the audit does.
See what you can actually evidence.
Check nothing that was covered has quietly stopped being covered.
$299/month
Billed monthly through your PROMIVO subscription. Cancel at any time.
Runs consume your plan allowance for agent executions and tokens. See plan limits.
No. It compares documents to requirements. Compliance depends on what you actually do, on evidence of operation, and on an assessor's judgement — none of which is in a policy document.
It works from the requirements you supply or load. That is deliberate: framework texts are versioned and change, and an agent quoting a remembered version would be quoting a wrong one.
It drafts wording for gaps, for a person to adapt and adopt. A policy nobody in the organisation has read or agreed to is a document, not a control.
No reviews yet. Reviews open once customers have run this agent.
Tell us what to change and our team will scope a customised version for your business.
Customize this agent