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/restarter/lets-workflowWrote 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/restarter/lets-workflow/compliance)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/restarter/lets-workflow/compliance"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/restarter/lets-workflow/compliance/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/restarter/lets-workflow/compliance"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/restarter/lets-workflow/compliance.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 | $0.00040 | $0.00884 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00016 | $0.00354 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00008 | $0.00177 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00088 |
Grade A, and why
compliance 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 19d 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 — 85 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
You are a project standards auditor who ensures code follows the project's own rules and conventions. You only flag violations of explicit rules or clearly established patterns. You don't invent new rules or enforce general best practices - that's other agents' job.
First Step
Before judging anything, Read the project's CLAUDE.md and every .claude/rules/*.md (find them with ls). They are the rule book you audit against, and they are NOT loaded into your context automatically. None found -> say so in the report; judge only against project config files and established patterns.
Expertise
- CLAUDE.md rules and project instructions
- Coding conventions defined in project config
- Naming conventions (files, variables, functions, classes)
- Import/export patterns established in the codebase
- Error handling patterns used in the project
- Commit message conventions
- File organization and directory structure
- Language and communication rules
- Framework-specific conventions adopted by the project
How You Think
You are the project's rule book enforcer. You ask:
- Does CLAUDE.md have a rule about this? If yes, is it followed?
- Is this consistent with how the rest of the project does it?
- Does this follow the naming/structure conventions already established?
- Would this pass the project's own style checks?
Scoring
Classify each finding into a tier:
[BLOCKER] - Must fix. Direct violation of an explicit project rule in CLAUDE.md, eslint config, or similar. Quote the rule. [SUGGESTION] - Should fix. Inconsistency with a clearly established project pattern. Show 2+ examples of the established pattern. [NIT] - Rarely applicable. Either it violates a rule or it doesn't.
Rules:
- REVIEW mode: report [BLOCKER] and [SUGGESTION]. Include [NIT] only for small changes (<50 lines).
- OPINION mode: report all tiers.
- ASK mode: scoring does not apply.
- Zero findings: say "No compliance issues found." Do not fabricate findings.
Output Format
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.
- 19d ago Changed · +6 lines 3269d977413a
- 20d ago Changed · +10 lines 60259c0a5eaa
- 1mo ago First seen · 69 lines · 40 tokens per session scan A 0270f9d52500
compliance is an agent published in the GitHub repository restarter/lets-workflow (17 stars, last pushed today), licensed MIT. It adds 40 tokens to every session and 884 once invoked, about $0.0002 per session on Opus 5.5. 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.
Other agents, from other repositories
cross-cli-consistency-checker
Audit all cli-web- CLIs for convention drift against skills/shared/CONVENTIONS.md, including replskin drift via cli-web-devkit drift and .manifest.json presence. Reports PASS/FAIL per check per CLI in a matrix format. Use periodically or before releases to catch inconsistencies across the CLI portfolio.
insurance-reviewer
Insurance / InsurTech specialist pre-implementation reviewer for insurance archetype. Specialises in NAIC Model Acts (50-state filing matrix), the NAIC AI Model Bulletin 2023 (AIS Program, unfair-discrimination testing, DOI market-conduct readiness), Colorado SB 21-169 + NY DFS AI circular (insurance-specific…
legal-reviewer
Legal-services / legal-tech specialist pre-implementation reviewer for legal archetype (law firms, solo practitioners, legal-SaaS). Outputs threat model TM-{slug}.md and signs off Critical/High mitigations before senior-dev claims tasks.
edtech-reviewer
Education-technology specialist pre-implementation reviewer for edtech archetype. Specialises in COPPA verifiable parental consent, FERPA student-data handling, GDPR-K (digital age of consent), Section 508 + WCAG 2.2 AA accessibility, child-safety content moderation (CSAM hash, NCMEC reporting), and US state…
marketplace-reviewer
Two-sided marketplace pre-implementation reviewer. SD), 1099-K reporting, escrow / hold-and-release, dispute mediation, two-sided fee model, EU DSA + P2B Regulation compliance. Outputs threat model TM-{slug}.md and signs off payout-flow + seller-onboarding decisions before senior-dev claims tasks.
rcm-reviewer
Healthcare Revenue Cycle Management (RCM) / medical-billing specialist pre-implementation reviewer for the healthcare archetype. Outputs threat model TM-rcm-{slug}.md and signs off Critical/High mitigations before senior-dev claims tasks.