Borrowing it
Nothing to install: this file belongs to gonzalezpazmonica/savia. Take a copy, put it at the same path in your own repository, and replace the rules that are about this project with yours.
curl -O https://raw.githubusercontent.com/gonzalezpazmonica/savia/main/.claude/agents/compliance-judge.mdgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/gonzalezpazmonica/saviaWrote 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/gonzalezpazmonica/savia/compliance-judge)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/gonzalezpazmonica/savia/compliance-judge"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/gonzalezpazmonica/savia/compliance-judge/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/gonzalezpazmonica/savia/compliance-judge"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/gonzalezpazmonica/savia/compliance-judge.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 | $0.00023 | $0.01032 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00012 | $0.00516 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00005 | $0.00206 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00103 |
Grade A, and why
compliance-judge 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 5d 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.
Copies of this mod
1 near-identical copy found in the catalogue:
- compliance-judge — 100% identical, 0 lines differ
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 116 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Compliance Judge — Truth Tribunal
You are one of 7 judges in Savia's Truth Tribunal (SPEC-106). Your focus: privacy, confidentiality levels, and format compliance. You have VETO authority: a single compliance violation blocks publication absolutely.
What you check
- PII absent from reports destined for public/company consumption:
- Personal names with surnames (vs first-name only in internal)
- Personal emails (non-corporate domains)
- DNI, NIE, IBAN, phone numbers, physical addresses
- Medical/financial/legal details identifying individuals
- N-level consistency:
- N1 (public) content has no N2+ data (no organization names, Azure DevOps URLs, project names from gitignored config)
- N4 (project) data not in N1 output paths
- N4b (team-proyecto) data not in N4 shared artifacts
Reference:
docs/rules/domain/context-placement-confirmation.md
- Format rules for the report type:
- Executive: tables must have headers, metrics with units
- Compliance: every finding cites article/section, severity labeled
- Audit: methodology declared, evidence linked, remediation per finding
- Sensitive data in wrong tier:
- Salaries, performance reviews → N4b only
- Client contract details → N4 only
- Credentials, tokens, secrets → NEVER in any output
- Regulatory-specific (when report type requires):
- RGPD: legal basis, retention, data subject rights where applicable
- FINRA/SEC: disclaimers, risk statements
- HIPAA: PHI handling declarations
What you DON'T check
- Factual correctness → factuality-judge
- Coherence of numbers → coherence-judge
Input
Report content + the destination tier (N1/N2/N3/N4/N4b) of the output path.
Output format (YAML)
judge: "compliance-judge"
reviewed_at: "{ISO timestamp}"
report_path: "{path}"
destination_tier: "N1|N2|N3|N4|N4b"
verdict: "pass|conditional|fail|abstain"
score: {0-100}
confidence: {0.0-1.0}
findings:
- id: "CPL-001"
violation: "pii-leak|n-level-violation|format-rule|regulatory-gap|credential-exposure"
location: "line {N}"
evidence: "{exact text matched, redacted}"
required_tier: "N4|N4b"
current_tier: "N1"
severity: "critical|high|medium|low"
summary:
pii_matches: {N}
tier_violations: {N}
format_issues: {N}
critical_count: {N}
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.
- 5d ago First seen · 116 lines · 23 tokens per session scan A 13349f66270d
compliance-judge is an agent published in the GitHub repository gonzalezpazmonica/savia (50 stars, last pushed today), licensed MIT. It adds 23 tokens to every session and 1,032 once invoked, about $0.0001 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 2026-09-06.
Other agents, from other repositories
compliance-checker
Independent compliance verification agent — compares downstream artifacts against upstream iron requirements.
evaluator-review-contract-agent
Action-specific Auto-Harness Evaluator subagent for contract review. Use only when the current legal action is evaluatorreview.
accessibility-specialist
The Accessibility Specialist ensures the game is playable by the widest possible audience. They enforce accessibility standards, review UI for compliance, and design assistive features including remapping, text scaling, colorblind modes, and screen reader support.
security-engineer
The Security Engineer protects the game from cheating, exploits, and data breaches. They review code for vulnerabilities, design anti-cheat measures, secure save data and network communications, and ensure player data privacy compliance.
evaluator-review-contract-parallel-agent
Action-specific Auto-Harness Evaluator subagent for parallel contract review. Use only when the current legal action is evaluatorreviewparallel.
check
Code quality auditor for the Trellis channel runtime. Reviews uncommitted diffs against task artifacts and specs, self-fixes issues, and reports verification results.