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 skills add event4u-app/agent-config --skill license-compliance-auditgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/event4u-app/agent-configWrote 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/event4u-app/agent-config/license-compliance-audit)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/event4u-app/agent-config/license-compliance-audit"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/event4u-app/agent-config/license-compliance-audit/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/event4u-app/agent-config/license-compliance-audit"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/event4u-app/agent-config/license-compliance-audit.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>- NVIDIA SkillSpector warn
SkillSpector: 2 findings, up to medium
These are SkillSpector’s own severities. On a checked sample its high-severity flags on skills were ~96% false positives — a documented command, a public API, a “never do X” rule — so we show them as a caution to read, not a verdict. Why →
- medium MCP Rug Pull · line 48 npx commands without a version suffix (e.g. @1.0.0) create a rug-pull risk if the upstream server is compromised and publishes a malicious update.Fix: Pin the version: npx @scope/[email protected]
- medium MCP Rug Pull · line 59 npx commands without a version suffix (e.g. @1.0.0) create a rug-pull risk if the upstream server is compromised and publishes a malicious update.Fix: Pin the version: npx @scope/[email protected]
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 | $0.00051 | $0.01893 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00026 | $0.00946 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00010 | $0.00379 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00189 |
Grade A, and why
license-compliance-audit 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 8d 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 — 162 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
license-compliance-audit
Gate G0 (road-to-provenance-and-license-governance, Phase 0) measured both
candidate similarity detectors against a frozen golden corpus and neither
met the pre-registered bar for a CI gate. Council resolved (2026-07-28,
Option A): no lint_code_provenance.ts in any form — not even
advisory. This skill is the result of that decision: the scan capability
that used to be a planned CI gate now exists only as something a human
invokes deliberately, so every hit gets investigated because a human
asked for it — never as a silent pipeline signal nobody reads.
When to use
- Before merging a diff that looks suspiciously similar to something you've seen elsewhere, or that a reviewer flagged.
- During a periodic self-audit (e.g. the Phase-4 "run the full pipeline on this repo" dogfood exercise).
- A reviewer or the
origin: uncertainself-flag fromcode-provenancenames a residual-class file worth a closer look.
Do NOT use when:
- You expect this to run automatically in CI — it does not, by explicit council decision; nothing here is wired into any pipeline.
- You expect a clean result to prove the code was not copied — it cannot; see the scope bound below.
- You already have a specific, known source to check against a specific
license — that's
license-compliance-borrow-check, a targeted one-source check, not a corpus-wide scan.
Procedure
- Inspect available tooling. The offline layer (L-1) is always
available via
npx:
The online layer (L0) is optional — check whether it is installed and reachable:npx jscpd --version
Offline-only is expected and fine in most environments; report it honestly rather than treating it as a failure.scanoss-py --version # or: pip show scanoss - Run the offline scan (L-1) against the target path or diff:
npx jscpd <path> --min-tokens 25--min-tokens 25is the pre-registered shipping value — the best false-positive-clean point of the S0.3 sweep (internal/bench/provenance/reports/baseline-2026-07-28.md). Read every reported clone pair as a candidate, never a verdict. - If L0 is reachable, run the fingerprint scan:
Only WFP fingerprints leave the machine, never raw source (privacy by construction, principle 7). If L0 is unreachable, rate-limited, or not installed, report the result asscanoss-py scan <path>partial (offline)explicitly — never claim a full two-layer scan ran. - Investigate every hit manually. For each match: is the matched file
already in
provenance/borrows.jsonl(cleared)? Does it read like independent convergence on a common algorithm shape, or an unattributed real copy? Open both files side by side before deciding — a match id is a starting point, not a conclusion. - Route unresolved hits. A hit with no existing ledger entry and no
independent-convergence explanation routes to
license-compliance-borrow-checkto classify and draft the entry. Never clear a hit yourself by simply deciding it's fine. - Report the scope bound alongside every result (see below) — a clean run means "nothing matched this KB/corpus at this sensitivity", never "no copying happened".
What ships with it
1 file beside SKILL.md in the same directory: the scripts, references and assets a skill reads on demand. Not counted in the per-session cost; read them before you install if any of them is executable.
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.
- 8d ago First seen · 162 lines · 51 tokens per session scan A 0127d16a4a29
license-compliance-audit is a skill published in the GitHub repository event4u-app/agent-config (10 stars, last pushed today), licensed MIT. It adds 51 tokens to every session and 1,893 once invoked, about $0.0003 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 2026-09-04.
Other skills, from other repositories
telnyx-email-suppressions-curl
Manage email suppressions (blocks), import and export suppression lists, and manage unsubscribe groups. Use for deliverability compliance and bounce handling.
healthcare-providers-verify
Validates practitioner credentials and license status against the NPI registry. Cross-references specialties, credentials, and practice addresses against official records. Returns Verified / Partially Verified / Unverified / Flagged per practitioner with mismatch details and source URLs. Triggers: "verify these…
python-packaging-license-finder
Use this skill to deterministically find license information for Python packages by checking PyPI metadata first, then falling back to Git repository LICENSE files using shallow cloning.
patent-review
Multi-round cyclic rigorous review of Chinese patent technical disclosure documents. Supports multi-dimension review (data flow closure, terminology consistency, state transition, formula completeness, error code routing, text-diagram consistency), round-by-round convergence, and optional auto-fix (default off, severe…
template-redacted-report
Redacted release-report exemplar for classification ceilings, source protection, source-safe ledgers, reviewer gates, and mosaic-risk checks.
disclosure-page-generator
When the user wants to create, optimize, or audit an affiliate, sponsor, or paid partnership disclosure page. Also use when the user mentions "disclosure," "affiliate disclosure," "sponsored content," "FTC disclosure," or "paid partnership." For sitewide page planning, use website-structure.