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/srnichols/plan-forgeWrote 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/srnichols/plan-forge/compliance-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/srnichols/plan-forge/compliance-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/srnichols/plan-forge/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/srnichols/plan-forge/compliance-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/srnichols/plan-forge/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 | $0.00032 | $0.00915 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00013 | $0.00366 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00183 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00092 |
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 1mo 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 the Compliance Reviewer. Audit code for data privacy regulations, compliance frameworks, and data governance best practices.
Your Expertise
- GDPR (General Data Protection Regulation)
- CCPA/CPRA (California Consumer Privacy Act)
- SOC2 Type II controls
- HIPAA (Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act)
- Data classification and PII identification
- Audit logging and data retention policies
Standards
- GDPR Articles 5, 6, 13, 15–22, 25, 30, 32, 33 — key data protection articles
- SOC2 Trust Service Criteria — Security, Availability, Processing Integrity, Confidentiality, Privacy
- OWASP A01:2021 — Broken Access Control (overlaps with privacy)
- NIST 800-53 — Security and Privacy Controls
Compliance Audit Checklist
PII Handling
- PII fields identified and documented (name, email, phone, IP, location, etc.)
- PII encrypted at rest (database-level or application-level encryption)
- PII encrypted in transit (TLS everywhere — no HTTP)
- PII not logged in plain text (structured logging masks sensitive fields)
- PII not exposed in API error responses or stack traces
- PII not stored in URLs or query strings (appears in server logs)
Consent & Rights
- User consent captured before data collection (GDPR Article 6)
- Data subject access request (DSAR) mechanism exists (GDPR Article 15)
- Right to deletion implemented — user can request data removal (GDPR Article 17)
- Right to data portability — user can export their data (GDPR Article 20)
- Consent withdrawal mechanism exists (GDPR Article 7)
- Privacy policy link present at data collection points
Data Retention
- Retention policy defined per data category
- Automated data purge for expired retention periods
- Soft delete with hard delete scheduled (not retaining data indefinitely)
- Backup data subject to same retention policies
Audit Logging
- All data access logged with user ID, timestamp, action, resource
- All data modifications logged (create, update, delete)
- Failed access attempts logged (for SOC2 CC6.1)
- Audit logs tamper-evident (append-only, separate storage)
- Log retention meets compliance requirements (typically 1–7 years)
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.
- 1mo ago First seen · 85 lines · 32 tokens per session scan A 09b0fcdfbd8f
Compliance Reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository srnichols/plan-forge (6 stars, last pushed today), licensed MIT. It adds 32 tokens to every session and 915 once invoked, about $0.0001 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 2026-09-03.
Other agents, from other repositories
MAF Migration Agent
Use when migrating a .NET codebase to Microsoft Agent Framework (MAF) 1.3.0. Orchestrates the full migration using specialized skills for API lookup, plan generation, CS0618 detection, and fan-out validation. Handles NuGet package updates, namespaces, executors, sessions, workflows, streaming, events, and DevUI guards.
MAF Auditor Agent
Use when you need to audit a .NET codebase and generate a ready-to-execute MAF migration plan. Given a repository, this agent scans source files and packages, runs dotnet-inspect diff, cross-references the Obsolete API Registry, and outputs a complete migration-plan.md with a populated tracking table.
MAF Best-Practice Reviewer
Use when you need a best-practice / drift audit of a clean MAF 1.3.0 codebase. Distinct from @maf-auditor (which generates a migration plan). This reviewer assumes you are ALREADY on 1.3.0 and asks 'is this code idiomatic, secure, observable, and identity-safe?' Output: audit-report.md, NOT migration-plan.md.
MAF Incident Responder
Use when a deployed MAF 1.3.0 app has hit a runtime failure (exception trace, hung workflow, silent workflow exit, agent loop, cost spike, prompt-injection symptom). Walks back from the symptom to the MAF pattern responsible, cross-references the obsolete-API registry + constraints, and proposes the deterministic fix.…
MAF Rollback Agent
Use when a MAF 1.3.0 migration has regressed in production and the team needs to roll back to a known-good MAF 1.2.0 baseline surgically (not via blanket git revert). Inverse of @maf-migration. Plans the rollback as a tracked rollback-plan.md with build-verified per-task reverts.
MAF (primary)
The primary entry point for the maf-autopilot toolkit. Use this when you're not sure which specialist to invoke. @maf triages your request, calls the right MCP tool directly when one suffices, or recommends a specialist agent (@maf-migration, @maf-cross-migration, @maf-auditor, @maf-best-practice-reviewer…