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 commands/brainbytes-dev/everything-claude-finance/compliance-checkgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/brainbytes-dev/everything-claude-financeWrote 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/commands/brainbytes-dev/everything-claude-finance/compliance-check)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/brainbytes-dev/everything-claude-finance/compliance-check"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/brainbytes-dev/everything-claude-finance/compliance-check.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 | $0.00007 | $0.01222 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00003 | $0.00611 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00001 | $0.00244 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00001 | $0.00122 |
Grade A, and why
compliance-check 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 4d 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 — 125 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
/compliance-check — Compliance Review
What This Command Does
Conducts a structured regulatory compliance review against applicable financial regulations. Identifies gaps, assesses risk exposure, and provides remediation recommendations with priority rankings. Covers AML/KYC, SOX, Basel III/IV, MiFID II, MaRisk, GDPR (financial data), and sector-specific regulations.
When to Use
- Periodic compliance health checks
- Pre-regulatory examination preparation
- New product or service compliance assessment
- Post-acquisition compliance integration
- Regulatory change impact analysis
- Board compliance reporting
How It Works
- Regulatory Mapping: Identifies all applicable regulations based on entity type, activities, and jurisdiction
- Control Assessment: Evaluates existing controls against regulatory requirements
- Gap Analysis: Identifies compliance gaps with severity classification
- Risk Scoring: Assigns likelihood and impact scores to each gap
- Remediation Plan: Proposes corrective actions with timelines and resource estimates
- Monitoring Framework: Defines ongoing compliance monitoring KPIs
Example Usage
Input:
/compliance-check entity:"Alpine Capital Partners" regulation:aml-kyc jurisdiction:EU
Output:
# Compliance Review — Alpine Capital Partners
## Focus: AML/KYC | Jurisdiction: EU (AMLD6) | Date: 2026-03-14
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
## Regulatory Framework
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
Applicable regulations:
- EU 6th Anti-Money Laundering Directive (AMLD6)
- EU Regulation 2024/1624 (AML Regulation — AMLR)
- National implementation (varies by member state)
- FATF Recommendations (global standard)
- EBA Guidelines on AML/CFT (EBA/GL/2021/02)
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
## Compliance Assessment
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
| Requirement | Status | Gap Description |
|--------------------------------|------------|------------------------------|
| AML/CFT risk assessment | ⚠ Partial | Last updated 18 months ago |
| Customer due diligence (CDD) | ✓ Adequate | Procedures documented |
| Enhanced due diligence (EDD) | ⚠ Partial | PEP screening gaps |
| Ongoing monitoring | 🔴 Gap | No automated transaction monitoring |
| Suspicious activity reporting | ✓ Adequate | SAR procedures in place |
| Record keeping | ✓ Adequate | 5-year retention confirmed |
| Staff training | ⚠ Partial | Training not annual |
| Beneficial ownership | ⚠ Partial | UBO verification incomplete for 12% |
| Sanctions screening | ✓ Adequate | Real-time screening active |
| MLRO appointment | ✓ Adequate | Designated officer in place |
Overall Score: 62/100 — NEEDS IMPROVEMENT
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
## Critical Gaps
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
### GAP-001: No Automated Transaction Monitoring (CRITICAL)
- Requirement: AMLD6 Art. 11 — ongoing monitoring of business relationships
- Current state: Manual review of transactions > EUR 15K only
- Risk: Failure to detect structured transactions below threshold
- Regulatory consequence: Potential fine up to EUR 5M or 10% of turnover
- Remediation: Implement automated TM system (est. EUR 150K, 4 months)
### GAP-002: Stale Risk Assessment (HIGH)
- Requirement: AMLD6 Art. 8 — risk assessment must be current
- Current state: Last formal assessment dated September 2024
- Risk: Risk appetite not aligned to current threat landscape
- Remediation: Commission updated firm-wide risk assessment (6 weeks)
### GAP-003: PEP Screening Incomplete (HIGH)
- Requirement: AMLD6 Art. 20-24 — enhanced measures for PEPs
- Current state: Initial screening only — no ongoing re-screening
- Risk: Existing clients acquiring PEP status go undetected
- Remediation: Enable continuous PEP monitoring in screening tool (2 weeks)
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
## Remediation Roadmap
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
| Priority | Action | Owner | Deadline | Cost Est. |
|----------|---------------------------|-------|------------|-----------|
| 1 | Update risk assessment | MLRO | 2026-04-30 | EUR 25K |
| 2 | Enable PEP re-screening | Ops | 2026-04-15 | EUR 5K |
| 3 | Implement TM system | IT | 2026-07-31 | EUR 150K |
| 4 | Annual training program | HR | 2026-05-31 | EUR 10K |
| 5 | UBO verification cleanup | Ops | 2026-05-15 | EUR 8K |
Total remediation investment: EUR 198K
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.
- 4d ago First seen · 125 lines · 7 tokens per session scan A 48b19325434f
compliance-check is a command published in the GitHub repository brainbytes-dev/everything-claude-finance (5 stars, last pushed 5mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 7 tokens to every session and 1,222 once invoked, about $0.0000 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 commands, from other repositories
tax-review
Tax-filing compliance check — invokes tax-reviewer to produce TM-tax-{slug}.md with MeF e-file schema, Form 8879, PTIN/Circular 230, and IRC §7216 consent gaps.
monitor
AML transaction monitoring and suspicious activity reporting.
tax-planning
Optimize tax liability or ensure tax compliance.
exit-analysis
Compare exit paths for a held property — hold, taxable sale, 1031 exchange, or cash-out refinance — with after-tax proceeds and forward IRR.
confronta
Forfettario vs SRL — quale conviene e quando ha senso passare. Confronto orientativo, mostra i poli e non un numero unico.
filings
Scan recent filings on a company and surface material events (director changes, new charges, capital events, insolvency markers). Works on GB / IE / CA / IS / FI / IM / LI / MX / KR.