Borrowing it
Nothing to install: this file belongs to charliehzm/medharness. Take a copy, put it at the same path in your own repository, and replace the rules that are about this project with yours.
curl -O https://raw.githubusercontent.com/charliehzm/medharness/main/.claude/skills/compliance-review/SKILL.mdgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/charliehzm/medharnessWrote 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/skills/charliehzm/medharness/compliance-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/charliehzm/medharness/compliance-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/charliehzm/medharness/compliance-review/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/skills/charliehzm/medharness/compliance-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/charliehzm/medharness/compliance-review.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 | $0.00205 | $0.02073 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00102 | $0.01037 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00041 | $0.00415 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00020 | $0.00207 |
Grade A, and why
compliance-review 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 12d 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 — 164 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Compliance Review (Step 10)
The Compliance Gate. Functional correctness was proven by Verify; this skill proves compliance correctness.
Core mental model
You are looking for four classes of risk in a change that already works:
- PHI leakage: data that should not have escaped the controlled zone (logs, exceptions, caches, external API payloads)
- Prompt-injection surface: new ingress paths where untrusted text reaches a model
- Model-call non-conformance: any LLM invocation outside
MODEL_ALLOWLIST.json - Test-data lineage breach: synthetic data that turns out to be reversible to real patients
Functional tests don't catch any of these — they test what's intended. You test what's unintended.
Why heterogeneous model?
If the change's coder used DeepSeek-V4-Pro and Compliance-Agent also uses DeepSeek-V4-Pro, you get correlated blind spots — both will overlook the same prompt-injection style. The Compliance-Agent's backing model MUST be a different family (e.g. Qwen if coder used DeepSeek, or vice versa). This is enforced by mcp-model-router; do not try to override.
What this skill produces
openspec/changes/<slug>/COMPLIANCE_REPORT.md with this exact section structure:
# COMPLIANCE_REPORT — <change_id>
## 1. Audit metadata (auditor model id, date, inputs)
## 2. Findings — High Risk (must be 0 to pass)
## 3. Findings — Medium Risk (each needs owner + remediation)
## 4. Findings — Low Risk (informational)
## 5. PHI handling assessment
## 6. Prompt-injection surface assessment
## 7. Model-call conformance assessment
## 8. Test-data lineage assessment
## 9. Sign-off block
When NOT to use this skill
Skip for:
- Changes that have not yet passed Step 7 Verify (functional bugs first)
- Pure docs / build / CI changes touching no L3/L4 path (use lightweight checklist instead)
- Bug-fix-only changes inside an already-archived bundle (those go through Step 11 mini-loop)
Active context bundle
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.
- 12d ago First seen · 164 lines · 205 tokens per session scan A 2c31c075ef11
compliance-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository charliehzm/medharness (86 stars, last pushed 3mo ago), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 205 tokens to every session and 2,073 once invoked, about $0.0010 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 skills, from other repositories
hipaa-review
Performs a HIPAA Security Rule compliance review against all Administrative, Physical, and Technical Safeguards defined in 45 CFR Part 164, Subpart C. Auto-invoked when discussing healthcare data security, ePHI protection, HIPAA audit readiness, or business associate compliance. Evaluates required and addressable…
Healthcare Compliance
HIPAA compliance, healthcare regulations, privacy and security standards for medical organizations and providers.
compliance
Use when scoping which regulatory frameworks bind a business — SOC 2, ISO 27001, HIPAA, PCI DSS, EU AI Act, DORA, NIS2 — building a control register with owners and evidence, or standing up the cadence that keeps it audit-ready. NOT drafting privacy-policy/ROPA/DPA or ToS text (that is gdpr-privacy, terms-conditions)…
performing-soc2-type2-audit-preparation
Automates SOC 2 Type II audit preparation including gap assessment against AICPA Trust Services Criteria (CC1-CC9), evidence collection from cloud providers and identity systems, control testing validation, remediation tracking, and continuous compliance monitoring. Covers all five TSC categories (Security…
akf-trust-metadata-v2
AKF — The AI Native File Format workflow skill. Use this skill when the user needs The AI native file format. EXIF for AI — stamps every file with trust scores, source provenance, and compliance metadata. Embeds into 20+ formats (DOCX, PDF, images, code). EU AI Act, SOX, HIPAA auditing and the operator should preserve…
compliance-audit
Regulatory compliance auditing across GDPR, HIPAA, PCI DSS, SOC 2, and ISO frameworks with automated evidence collection and gap analysis. Use when conducting compliance assessments, preparing for certifications, or implementing regulatory controls.