reform-comparator

A comparison step in a policy-analysis workflow. It checks a simulated policy result against an earlier reference result, called an anchor, and decides whether the difference is acceptable.

In plain words
What is it for?
Comparing costs and poverty results, normalizing one-year and ten-year figures, handling skipped simulations, and returning PASS or INVESTIGATE.
Why use it?
It identifies when a simulation is outside the expected range and needs investigation, while accounting for different years, time spans, and dataset versions.

Agent

Install

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.

agentmods
npx agentmods add agents/policyengine/policyengine-claude/reform-comparator
Clone the repo
git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/PolicyEngine/policyengine-claude
Per session 63 Only the description is in the session, so the agent can decide to use it. The body loads when it is invoked.
When invoked 5,598 The whole file, excluding the scripts and references it only reads on demand.
Security scan A 0 findings. Scan, not verified.
Origin original No closer match found in the catalogue.
Token cost

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.

ModelPer sessionOnce invoked
Fable 5 $0.00063 $0.05598
Opus 5 $0.00032 $0.02799
Sonnet 5 $0.00013 $0.01120
Haiku 4.5 $0.00006 $0.00560

Measured 3d ago against content hash affc58fabec8, method: parsed. Prices are Anthropic first-party input rates as of 2026-08-30, from the pricing page.

Security

Grade A, and why

reform-comparator 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 3d 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.

agents/reform-comparator.md · 300 lines

How it starts

The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 300 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.

Reform Comparator

Stage 5 of /analyze-policy. Compares our microsim output to the prior-scores anchor and decides whether the result is consistent or needs investigation.

Inputs

  • microsim_result (from microsim-runner) — may be null in --skip-microsim mode
  • prior_anchor (from prior-scores-finderanchors[preferred_anchor_index])
  • tolerance_band (default: ±25% on cost, ±5 absolute pp on poverty)

When microsim_result is null (--skip-microsim mode)

The /analyze-policy command invokes the comparator with microsim_result=null when the user passed --skip-microsim. In that case:

  1. Construct a synthetic predicted result from the anchor:
    • Take the anchor's magnitudes block.
    • Normalize per Step 1 below (year alignment + 10-year extrapolation if needed).
    • Emit the normalized values as the "predicted" result with synthetic: true flag.
  2. Treat the synthetic result as if it were our microsim output for the comparison step.
  3. Return verdict — typically PASS by construction. This is intentional: process-test mode validates the pipeline plumbing, not the actual numerical agreement.
  4. In the output, set verdict_caveat: "process-test — predicted result derived from anchor, not from live microsim" so the downstream report doesn't claim a real validation.

The synthetic-result schema mirrors microsim_result:

{
  "synthetic": true,
  "predicted_from_anchor": "Restoration of ARPA CTC",
  "results": {
    "budget": {"annual_cost_billion_year1": 110.2},
    "poverty": {"child_pct_change": -37.0},
    "distribution": {"gini_pct_change": -1.9}
  }
}

Process

Step 1: Normalize the prior to our run

Most prior PE scores are reported as either single-year cost or 10-year cost, on a specific dataset version. To compare apples-to-apples:

  1. Year alignment. If the anchor reports 2023 single-year cost and our run is 2026 multi-year, uprate the anchor:
    • Wage growth: assume +2.5-3.5%/yr nominal (use CBO macroeconomic projections if explicit).
    • Population growth: +0.5-0.7%/yr.
    • Combined uprating factor: anchor_2023 × (1 + 0.035)^(2026-2023) ≈ × 1.10 for 2026 single-year.
  2. Single-year vs 10-year normalization. If the anchor is a 10-year score and our run is single-year, normalize the ANCHOR to a per-year average (divide by 10). Do NOT extrapolate our single-year to 10 years by multiplication — this is banned pipeline-wide because per-year cost evolves nontrivially over any window with baseline changes (see the 2026-07-01 std-ded case: yr1×10 understated the real 10-year by 10%). If a real 10-year comparison is required, re-run the microsim with --horizon 10.
  3. Dataset version note. Read data_version from the microsim result and record it in the output (our_run_dataset + our_run_data_version). Do NOT hardcode the dataset name. As of PE-US 1.729.0+ the deployed API's enhanced_cps name backs to populace-us-2024. Any prior PE score published on the older Enhanced CPS vintage may differ by 5-10% on refundable-credit costs; flag as a known direction-of-difference.
  4. CRITICAL — baseline-schedule alignment. Most published anchors are scored against a specific current-law baseline at the time of writing. If the law has changed since (e.g., SALT cap raised to $40K by OBBBA in 2025, then snapping back to $10K in 2030), comparing our 2026 run (against the OBBBA $40K baseline) to a 2023 prior (against the TCJA $10K baseline) overstates the reform's incremental impact. The 2030 snap-back also means single-year extrapolation across 2030 is biased.

Read the full file on GitHub · 300 lines

Changes

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.

  1. 3d ago First seen · 300 lines · 63 tokens per session scan A affc58fabec8

Subscribe to this mod's changes

reform-comparator is an agent published in the GitHub repository PolicyEngine/policyengine-claude (31 stars, last pushed 8d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 63 tokens to every session and 5,598 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 2026-08-30.

Related

Other agents, from other repositories

editor

Journal editor who desk-reviews manuscripts, selects two referees with deliberately different dispositions, calibrates to a target journal from .claude/references/journal-profiles.md, and synthesizes an editorial decision (FATAL / ADDRESSABLE / TASTE). Used by /review-paper --peer [journal].

pedrohcgs/claude-code-my-workflow · 64 tokens

algorithm-expert

RL algorithm expert. Fire when working on GRPO/PPO/DAPO/GSPO/SAPO algorithms, reward functions, advantage normalization, loss computation, or training loop implementation.

redai-infra/Relax · 37 tokens

by-epitope

Deep epitope analysis agent. Maps binding interfaces from PDB structures, classifies epitope type, assesses druggability, identifies cryptic sites, cross-references SAbDab, and generates hotspot arrays in BoltzGen entities YAML format.

001TMF/blatant-why · 58 tokens

mathodology-coder

Use for reproducible computation, simulation, optimization, figures, tables, and experiment logs.

sweetcornna/mathodology · 24 tokens

mathodology-problem-analyst

Use for contest problem decomposition, scoring criteria, constraints, variables, assumptions, and deliverable mapping.

sweetcornna/mathodology · 29 tokens

scientist

AI/ML researcher — paper analysis, hypothesis generation, experiment design. ONLY for named research paper/hypothesis/experiment. NOT for general Python (foundry:sw-engineer), SOTA surveys (/research:topic), web content (foundry:web-explorer), dataset acquisition (research:data-steward). TRIGGER: implementing from…

Borda/AI-Rig · 77 tokens