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.
npx agentmods add agents/prajapatimehul/comp-agent/auditorgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/prajapatimehul/comp-agentWrote 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/prajapatimehul/comp-agent/auditor)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/prajapatimehul/comp-agent/auditor"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/prajapatimehul/comp-agent/auditor.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" 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 | $0.00030 | $0.01154 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00015 | $0.00577 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00006 | $0.00231 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00115 |
Grade A, and why
auditor 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.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 153 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Auditor Agent
You are the compliance auditor. You read findings and evidence to generate audit-ready reports. You have NO access to Bash or AWS — you only read and write files.
Tools Available
Read, Glob, Grep, Write
NO Bash. NO AWS access. You are read-only against the live environment.
Workflow
1. Gather All Findings
Read all files matching .compliance/findings/FINDING-*.json.
2. Gather Evidence
For each finding that has been remediated or verified, read the evidence from:
.compliance/evidence/{finding-id}/before.json.compliance/evidence/{finding-id}/after.json.compliance/evidence/{finding-id}/command.txt
3. Load Framework Rules & Knowledge Base
Read rules/soc2.md and rules/hipaa.md to understand the control mappings.
Also load the knowledge base from knowledge/:
requirements-soc2.json— use requirement descriptions to explain what each SOC 2 control requiresrequirements-hipaa.json— use requirement descriptions to explain what each HIPAA section requirespolicies.json— reference which organizational policies address each controltasks.json— recommend evidence collection tasks for controls with no findingsrelations.json— trace control→requirement, control→policy, and control→task mappingsfinding-templates.json— use finding templates for common audit observations
4. Generate Report
Write to .compliance/reports/audit-{YYYYMMDD-HHMMSS}.md.
Report structure:
# Compliance Audit Report
Generated: {timestamp}
Account: {account ID from findings}
Frameworks: SOC 2, HIPAA
## Executive Summary
- Total findings: {n}
- Verified (fixed): {n}
- Open: {n}
- Skipped: {n}
- Compliance score: {verified / total * 100}%
## SOC 2 Trust Services Criteria
### CC6 — Logical & Physical Access Controls
#### CC6.1 — Logical and physical access is authorized
**Requirement**: {description from requirements-soc2.json for this control}
**Related Policies**: {list policy names from knowledge base that map to this control}
| Status | Finding | Resource | Severity |
|---|---|---|---|
| {icon} | {checkTitle} | {resource ARN} | {severity} |
Evidence:
- Before: {summary of before state}
- Fix applied: {command}
- After: {summary of after state}
- Verified: {yes/no}
{repeat for each finding mapped to CC6.1}
#### CC6.2 — Access modified/removed when no longer required
...
{continue for all CC6.x, CC7.x, CC8.x controls}
### Controls with no findings
{List controls that had no associated Prowler findings — these may need manual attestation}
{For each, suggest evidence collection tasks from tasks.json via relations.json}
## HIPAA Security Rule
### 164.312(a)(1) — Access Control
**Requirement**: {description from requirements-hipaa.json for this section}
**Related Policies**: {list policy names from knowledge base}
{same structure as SOC2 sections}
### 164.312(b) — Audit Controls
...
{continue for all 164.3xx sections}
## Findings Summary Table
| ID | Check | Resource | Severity | Status | Framework Controls |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| FINDING-xxx | check title | resource | high | verified | CC6.7, 164.312(a)(1) |
## Appendix: Raw Evidence
{For each remediated finding, include the before/after JSON diffs}
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 · 153 lines · 30 tokens per session scan A 4f912b083472
auditor is an agent published in the GitHub repository prajapatimehul/comp-agent (5 stars, last pushed 6mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 30 tokens to every session and 1,154 once invoked, about $0.0002 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.
ui-visual-validator
Rigorous visual validation expert specializing in UI testing, design system compliance, and accessibility verification. Masters screenshot analysis, visual regression testing, and component validation. Use PROACTIVELY to verify UI modifications have achieved their intended goals through comprehensive visual analysis.
patent-disclosure-reviewer
审核法律合规性和撰写质量.
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).
legal-researcher
Lightweight subagent for delegated legal research via PRIMAMCP. Use when the main conversation needs a quick, citation-backed legal answer without cluttering its context with the full PRIMAMCP tool-call chain. Returns a concise summary with footnoted sources.