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/mlunato47/claude-grc-pluginWrote 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/mlunato47/claude-grc-plugin/review-policy)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/mlunato47/claude-grc-plugin/review-policy"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/mlunato47/claude-grc-plugin/review-policy/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/mlunato47/claude-grc-plugin/review-policy"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/mlunato47/claude-grc-plugin/review-policy.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 | $0.00012 | $0.01302 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00006 | $0.00651 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00002 | $0.00260 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00001 | $0.00130 |
Grade A, and why
review-policy 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 9d 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.
Copies of this mod
1 near-identical copy found in the catalogue:
- review-policy — 100% identical, 0 lines differ
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 148 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
/grc:review-policy
Review a policy document against framework requirements for structure, coverage, and language quality.
Usage
/grc:review-policy [framework] [family]
The user pastes their policy text or outline after invoking the command.
Arguments
- framework: The compliance framework. Accepts:
nist,fedramp,fisma,cmmc,soc2,iso27001,pci,hipaa,cis - family: The control family the policy covers (e.g.,
ac,ia,ir,cm,cp). For non-NIST frameworks, use the equivalent domain (e.g.,CC6for SOC 2 logical access).
Examples
/grc:review-policy fedramp ac
/grc:review-policy nist ir
/grc:review-policy fedramp cm
/grc:review-policy iso27001 A.8
/grc:review-policy pci 8
Behavior
When invoked:
-
Display the Data Sensitivity Notice at the top of every response (see SKILL.md Data Handling section).
-
Read the appropriate reference files:
skills/grc-knowledge/audits/document-section-requirements.mdfor policy structural requirementsskills/grc-knowledge/audits/narrative-quality-criteria.mdfor language quality indicators- Framework file from
skills/grc-knowledge/frameworks/for control family requirements
-
Evaluate the policy against these criteria:
a. Structural Elements Check Verify presence of each required policy element:
- Purpose statement
- Scope definition
- Roles and responsibilities
- Policy statements (mandatory requirements)
- Procedures reference
- Definitions (recommended)
- Compliance/enforcement section
- Exceptions process (recommended)
- Review frequency
- Approval authority
- Effective date
- Version/revision history
- Related documents (recommended)
b. Control Coverage For the specified family at the applicable baseline:
- Which controls in the family are addressed by the policy?
- Which controls are partially addressed?
- Which controls are not addressed at all?
- Are enhancements covered where applicable?
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.
- 9d ago First seen · 148 lines · 12 tokens per session scan A f15de9e1d40e
review-policy is a command published in the GitHub repository mlunato47/claude-grc-plugin (181 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 12 tokens to every session and 1,302 once invoked, about $0.0001 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 2026-08-30.
Other commands, from other repositories
deps-audit
Audit project dependencies for vulnerabilities, outdated packages, license conflicts, and supply chain risks — then provide actionable remediation strategies.
review-epo-claims
Analyze patent claims for EPO Art. 84 EPC compliance - clarity, conciseness, support by description.
voice-compliance
Voice/telephony compliance check — invokes voice-ai-reviewer to produce TM-voice-{slug}.md with TCPA, STIR/SHAKEN, state recording-consent, EU AI Act Art. 50, and synth-voice deepfake-law gaps.
at-dsgvo
You are helping an enterprise architect generate an Austrian Data Protection Assessment — the Austrian-specific GDPR layer applied by the Datenschutzbehörde (DSB) under the Datenschutzgesetz (DSG 2018, BGBl. I Nr. 165/1999 as amended). Run this after /arckit:eu-rgpd to add Austrian obligations that go beyond the EU…
au-pspf
You are an enterprise architect generating a Protective Security Policy Framework (PSPF) compliance assessment for an Australian Government entity or contractor handling government information.
compliance-audit
Full regulatory compliance audit for GDPR, HIPAA, SOC2, PCI-DSS, ISO 27001, and other frameworks with gap analysis, remediation planning, and evidence collection.