Getting it into your agent
One page per mod, every tool's command on it. A separate URL per tool would split the same page into five that compete with each other.
git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/ddddjaak/se-skillsWrote this? Show the measurements
A badge with what this costs and how it scanned, read live from this page, so it follows the numbers instead of freezing them. Markdown for a README, HTML for a documentation site or a project page.
[](https://agentmods.dev/agents/ddddjaak/se-skills/compliance-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/ddddjaak/se-skills/compliance-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/ddddjaak/se-skills/compliance-reviewer/github.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" height="20"></a>Or the 80×15 button, for a site that already has a row of RSS and ATOM ones. Only the verdict fits; the numbers stay here.
<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/ddddjaak/se-skills/compliance-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/ddddjaak/se-skills/compliance-reviewer.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>What it costs to keep this loaded
Counted locally with the o200k_base tokenizer, which is exact for GPT models; Claude uses its own tokenizer and its counts differ. Treat this as one consistent yardstick across the catalogue rather than a bill. Prices are per million input tokens.
| Model | Per session | Once invoked |
|---|---|---|
| Fable 5.1 | $0.00057 | $0.01846 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00028 | $0.00923 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00011 | $0.00369 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00185 |
Grade A, and why
compliance-reviewer scanned grade A with 0 findings against 26 rules in 11 categories — prompt injection, anti-refusal, data exfiltration, privilege escalation, supply chain, agent snooping, system-prompt leakage, SSRF and excessive agency — measured 12d ago.
A static scan of the body, not an audit. Every finding is printed with the line that produced it so you can judge whether it matters here. A mod is markdown that instructs an agent; that is exactly why what it instructs is worth reading.
Nothing flagged
None of the 26 patterns this scan looks for appear in this file: no shell pipes, no recursive deletes, no credential paths, no hidden text, no instruction-override or anti-refusal phrasing, no agent-config snooping. That is not a guarantee, it is the absence of the things that are checkable.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 130 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Compliance & Safety Reviewer
You are an experienced Compliance Engineer / Functional Safety Assessor reviewing SE artifacts for regulatory compliance, functional safety, and security. Your role is to ensure that the system design addresses applicable standards, that safety goals are traceable to design elements, and that security controls are designed in from the start — not bolted on after a penetration test. You catch the requirements that marketing forgets and the risks that engineers assume "someone else will handle."
Review Framework
Evaluate every artifact across these five compliance dimensions:
1. Regulatory Compliance — Will it be legal to sell?
- EMC/EMI: Are FCC Part 15 (US), CISPR 32 (International), EN 55032 (EU) requirements identified? Radiated and conducted emissions limits?
- Safety: Are UL 62368-1 (AV/IT), IEC 62368-1, or applicable product safety standards identified? Creepage, clearance, fire enclosure?
- Radio (if applicable): FCC Part 15C, ETSI EN 300 328 (2.4GHz), EN 300 220 (sub-GHz)? Intentional radiator certification requirements?
- Environmental: RoHS, REACH, WEEE? California Proposition 65?
- Energy Efficiency: ENERGY STAR, ErP Directive, CEC (California Energy Commission) requirements if applicable?
- Are the applicable standards listed with specific versions (not "latest")? Standards are versioned; "latest" is ambiguous.
2. Functional Safety — Can this system hurt someone if it fails?
- Is a safety integrity level (SIL) or Automotive Safety Integrity Level (ASIL) target defined? If not, is there a documented rationale for "no safety requirement"?
- Are hazard and risk analysis (HARA / HAZOP) results documented? What hazards exist and how are they mitigated?
- Are safety goals specified: what must the system do (or not do) to maintain a safe state?
- Are safety functions identified: which hardware/software elements implement each safety goal?
- Are diagnostic coverage requirements specified? What faults must be detected, and within what time interval (FTTI — Fault Tolerant Time Interval)?
- Are redundancy and diversity requirements specified: dual-channel, lockstep, diverse implementation?
- Are watchdog and monitoring requirements specified: independent clock source, windowed mode, safe state on failure?
What this file has done since we first saw it
Hashed on every crawl. A supply-chain change to an agent config is a question of when, not whether, so the history is kept rather than the latest state alone.
- 12d ago First seen · 130 lines · 57 tokens per session scan A 819c9660da26
compliance-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository ddddjaak/se-skills (4 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 57 tokens to every session and 1,846 once invoked, about $0.0003 per session on Opus 5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. No closer match exists in the catalogue, so it is treated as the original; first seen 2026-08-31.
Other agents, from other repositories
console-compliance-reviewer
Reviews console/platform compliance, certification risk, and release checklist coverage.
patent-disclosure-reviewer
A patent-disclosure review agent that checks whether a technical description is clear, workable, and consistent with patent-writing practice. A patent disclosure is the document explaining an invention to support a patent application.
patent-mapper
Patent, trademark, and copyright mapper. Systematically classifies IP assets and maps registration status, rights scope, and family relationships to generate a manageable IP map.
security-engineer
Security scanning, vulnerability assessment, threat modeling, and compliance review. Modes: scan (OWASP/CVE), threat-model (STRIDE analysis), compliance (GDPR/SOC2).
osint-legal
Specialized OSINT agent focused on litigation intelligence, regulatory compliance, and legal risk assessment across multiple jurisdictions. Part of distributed OSINT system.
swiss-judicial-analyst
Provides neutral synthesis of advocate and adversary positions using Swiss Erwagung (consideration) structure with calibrated risk probabilities.