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/ololand-ai/ololand-pluginsWrote 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/ololand-ai/ololand-plugins/compliance-analysis)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/ololand-ai/ololand-plugins/compliance-analysis"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/ololand-ai/ololand-plugins/compliance-analysis/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/ololand-ai/ololand-plugins/compliance-analysis"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/ololand-ai/ololand-plugins/compliance-analysis.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 | $0.00033 | $0.00480 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00013 | $0.00192 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00007 | $0.00096 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00048 |
Grade A, and why
compliance-analysis 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.
What it actually says
Compliance Analysis
Run OloLand's compliance workbench for sanctions, antitrust threshold, and national-security risk checks.
Usage
/compliance-analysis <deal_id> [ofac|hsr|cfius|all]
Arguments
deal_id(required) - The deal to analyze.scope(optional) -ofac,hsr,cfius, orall. Default:all.
Execution
- For
ofacorall, callrun_ofac_screen(deal_id). Pass explicitentitiesorsdn_entriesonly if the user supplied them. - For
hsrorall, callrun_hsr_analysis(deal_id). If the user supplies transaction value, buyer size, target size, or exemptions, pass those inputs through. Dollar inputs are in millions. - For
cfiusorall, callrun_cfius_risk(deal_id, ...). Ask for missing acquirer country, target industry, government ownership, critical technology, critical infrastructure, sensitive data, and government-contract flags when they materially affect the result. - Use returned
view_urlvalues for web app handoff.
Output
Render:
- OFAC - match status, matched entities, confidence, required remediation.
- HSR - reportability status, thresholds crossed, exemptions, timing risk.
- CFIUS - risk tier, drivers, mitigation path, filing recommendation.
- Open diligence asks - missing identities, jurisdictions, NAICS/product categories, ownership, sensitive-data facts.
Guardrails
- This is workflow support, not legal advice. Tell the user to involve counsel for filings, sanctions escalations, or CFIUS mitigation.
- Do not treat missing acquirer/target details as clean results. Classify missing data as a gap.
Output URL Conventions
Use the tool-returned view_url. Canonical surface:
- Compliance workbench:
https://app.ololand.ai/deals/{deal_id}/analysis/compliance
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 · 46 lines · 33 tokens per session scan A d04c691c429f
compliance-analysis is a command published in the GitHub repository ololand-ai/ololand-plugins (0 stars, last pushed 3d ago), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 33 tokens to every session and 480 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 2026-08-31.
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.
review-policy
Review a policy document for structure, coverage, and language quality.
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.
app-store-audit
Run an enterprise pre submission compliance audit on an iOS or Android app against Apple App Store and Google Play rejection rules. Pass a project path or run from the project root.