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/mizukaizen/hive-doctrine-mcpWrote 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/mizukaizen/hive-doctrine-mcp/compliance-check)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/mizukaizen/hive-doctrine-mcp/compliance-check"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/mizukaizen/hive-doctrine-mcp/compliance-check/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/commands/mizukaizen/hive-doctrine-mcp/compliance-check"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/mizukaizen/hive-doctrine-mcp/compliance-check.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 | $0.00000 | $0.00462 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00000 | $0.00231 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00000 | $0.00092 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00000 | $0.00046 |
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 10d 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 — 68 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
/compliance-check
Quick compliance check against specific framework requirements.
Usage
/compliance-check --framework "SOC2|ISO27001|GDPR|PCI-DSS" --control "<control-area>"
Behaviour
Unlike the full /audit, this is a targeted check for a specific control area. It runs fast and returns a focused assessment.
1. Identify the Control
Map the control area to specific framework requirements. Common control areas:
| Area | What It Covers |
|---|---|
access-control |
Authentication, authorisation, session management |
encryption |
Data at rest, data in transit, key management |
logging |
Audit trails, log retention, monitoring |
data-retention |
Data lifecycle, deletion, archival |
incident-response |
Detection, response, notification procedures |
change-management |
Code review, deployment gates, rollback procedures |
backup |
Backup frequency, testing, recovery procedures |
network |
Firewalls, segmentation, ingress/egress controls |
2. Scan for Evidence
Search the codebase and configuration for evidence relevant to the specified control:
- Configuration files
- Code patterns (middleware, decorators, hooks)
- Documentation (policies, runbooks)
- CI/CD pipeline definitions
3. Quick Assessment
Produce a focused result:
# Compliance Check: [Framework] — [Control Area]
## Status: [PASS / PARTIAL / FAIL]
## Requirements Checked
| # | Requirement | Status | Evidence |
|---|------------|--------|----------|
| 1 | [Requirement] | [Met/Not Met] | [File or config reference] |
## Gaps (if any)
- [Specific gap and what is needed]
## Quick Fixes
- [Immediate action that would improve compliance]
4. Output
Display the result inline. If gaps are found, offer to create remediation tasks.
Notes
- This is a lightweight check, not a formal audit. Use
/auditfor comprehensive compliance assessment. - The check looks at code and configuration only. It cannot verify operational procedures (e.g., whether backups are actually tested regularly).
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.
- 10d ago First seen · 68 lines · 0 tokens per session scan A 2ccc6491a7d4
compliance-check is a command published in the GitHub repository mizukaizen/hive-doctrine-mcp (0 stars, last pushed 2mo ago), licensed MIT. It costs nothing until one of its globs matches a file; then it loads 462 tokens. 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
close-review
Month-end close / GL compliance check — invokes accounting-reviewer to produce TM-accounting-{slug}.md with double-entry integrity, ASC 606 revenue-recognition, period-lock, and SOX ITGC gaps.
coding-audit
Medical-coding / revenue-cycle compliance audit. Invokes rcm-reviewer to assess autonomous ICD-10-CM / CPT / HCPCS coding for False Claims Act exposure (upcoding/unbundling), NCCI edits + MUEs, medical necessity (LCD/NCD), modifier discipline, HIPAA minimum-necessary — and force a certified-coder (CPC/CCS) sign-off.
procurement-review
Procurement / source-to-pay compliance check — invokes procurement-reviewer to produce TM-procurement-{slug}.md with three-way match, segregation-of-duties, OFAC-screening, and SOX procurement-controls gaps.
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.
full-review
Complete patent application review (claims + specification + formalities in parallel).
review-formalities
Check patent application formalities (abstract, title, drawings per MPEP 608).