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-borrow-checkgit 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-borrow-check)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/event4u-app/agent-config/license-compliance-borrow-check"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/event4u-app/agent-config/license-compliance-borrow-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/skills/event4u-app/agent-config/license-compliance-borrow-check"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/event4u-app/agent-config/license-compliance-borrow-check.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 56 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 90 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 | $0.00043 | $0.01854 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00017 | $0.00742 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00009 | $0.00371 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00185 |
Grade A, and why
license-compliance-borrow-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 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.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 146 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
license-compliance-borrow-check
When to use
- Before adapting, porting, or otherwise consciously reusing an algorithm, a non-trivial structure, or more than roughly ten lines of logic shape from a source you can name (a repo, a gist, a Stack Overflow answer).
- The
code-provenancerule fired and its step 3 ("check license compatibility") needs a concrete answer. - A reviewer or the
origin: uncertainself-flag surfaces a borrow that was never checked.
Do NOT use when:
- No conscious borrow happened — a well-known, unpatentable algorithm shape (a for-loop, a hash map) implemented with no specific source in mind.
- The borrow is already ledgered with a valid entry — use
license-compliance-creditsto regenerate notices instead. - You want a broad similarity scan across the repo, not one source — use
license-compliance-audit.
A passing verdict is not a copying clearance
This skill answers ONE question: is the source's license compatible with
this repo's license, under the derived compatibility policy? An allow
verdict means the license permits the reuse — it says nothing about whether
the code-provenance discipline (read,
close the source, re-derive against house standards) was actually followed.
License-clean code that is still a verbatim copy is still a violation of
that rule. Run both checks; treat neither as a substitute for the other.
Procedure
- Identify the source — the URL or repo path being borrowed from, and
the exact commit or blob SHA the snippet was taken from (
git log -1 --format=%H -- <path>on the source repo, or the URL's own commit ref). - Detect the source's license. Check, in order: a
LICENSE/LICENSE.md/COPYINGfile at the source repo root; the source'spackage.json"license"field; itscomposer.json"license"field; an SPDX header comment in the file itself. If none resolve to a known SPDX id, the license isunknown— never guess permissive. - Detect this repo's target policy. Run:
Ifnpx tsx node_modules/@event4u/agent-config/src/scripts/detect_target_license.ts . --jsonlicense-policy.yamlexists at the repo root, read itspolicy.{allow,conditional,deny}buckets directly. If it does not (dry run only), derive the same buckets by hand from this repo's ownLICENSEfile and the compatibility matrix innode_modules/@event4u/agent-config/src/scripts/_lib/detect_target_license.ts(COMPATIBILITY_MATRIX/classifyBorrow). - Classify the borrow. Map the source's SPDX id to its source class
(permissive / weak-copyleft / gpl-2.0 / gpl-3.0 / agpl / sspl /
unknown), then read the verdict off the target's policy buckets:allow,conditional(escalate), ordeny. A source license ofunknownis alwaysdeny— no exception. - Act on the verdict:
allow→ continue to step 6 (draft the ledger entry).conditional→ STOP. Do not write the borrowed code yet. Escalate to the user with the exact matrix cell that triggered it (perask-when-uncertain) — never auto-clear a conditional verdict.deny→ refuse the borrow. Name the alternative: write it from scratch, find a permissively-licensed equivalent, or ask the maintainer for an explicit, recorded exception.
- Draft the ledger entry — one JSON object matching
node_modules/@event4u/agent-config/src/scripts/schemas/provenance-borrow.schema.json(source_url,license,source_sha,borrowed_at,files,transformation_note,cleared_by). Write atransformation_notethat names a real structural change — rename-only phrasing (e.g. "renamed variables", "cosmetic rename") is rejected bylint_provenance.tseven if the code has not landed yet, so draft it honestly against what will actually change. - Present the draft to the user before appending it. Once the
re-derived code lands, append the confirmed entry to
provenance/borrows.jsonland verify:
Exit 0 confirms the entry is schema-valid, license-compliant, and its transformation note passed the rename-only phrase check.npx tsx node_modules/@event4u/agent-config/src/scripts/lint_provenance.ts
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.
- 1mo ago First seen · 146 lines · 43 tokens per session scan A 19ef2b4dde0a
license-compliance-borrow-check is a skill published in the GitHub repository event4u-app/agent-config (16 stars, last pushed today), licensed MIT. It adds 43 tokens to every session and 1,854 once invoked, about $0.0002 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 2026-09-04.
Other skills, from other repositories
disclosure-page-generator
Deprecated compatibility entry for Disclosure Page construction. This page is now maintained in Pagina; install and use page-builder to build a new Disclosure Page.
email-lifecycle-send-check
Checks a drafted email flow or broadcast before it is loaded: flow logic and exits, overlaps, offer depth and codes, stock, claims, consent and legal footer, SMS rules, rendering, voice and AI-copy tells, and the goal metric. Returns a pass / fixed / open-question table. Use alone when you already have the finished…
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…
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.
companies-house
Research UK companies using Companies House data. Use when the user asks about UK companies, directors, ownership, filings, due diligence, or company searches.