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 agentmods add skills/hoavdc/codexkit/codexkit-compliance-gap-reviewnpx skills add hoavdc/CodexKit --skill codexkit-compliance-gap-reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/hoavdc/CodexKitWrote 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/hoavdc/codexkit/codexkit-compliance-gap-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/hoavdc/codexkit/codexkit-compliance-gap-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/hoavdc/codexkit/codexkit-compliance-gap-review.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" 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 | $0.00079 | $0.00708 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00039 | $0.00354 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00016 | $0.00142 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00008 | $0.00071 |
Grade A, and why
codexkit-compliance-gap-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 4d 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 — 86 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Compliance Gap Review
Purpose
Transform a vague compliance concern into a concrete gap assessment and remediation view.
When to use
- A team needs to assess readiness against AML, KYC, privacy, audit, or control expectations.
- Policies and evidence exist but no one has mapped gaps clearly.
- Leadership needs remediation priorities, not just a checklist dump.
When not to use
- No target framework, policy baseline, or standard is named.
- The request requires a formal legal opinion or regulator submission.
Inputs
- named framework, regulation, or internal control standard
- current policies, procedures, forms, or evidence
- scope: business unit, process, customer segment, or geography
- known incidents, findings, or deadlines
Procedure
- Define the exact framework and scope before evaluating anything.
- Break the framework into control requirements or evidence expectations.
- Compare current evidence against each requirement.
- Rate each gap by severity, exposure, and remediation effort.
- Separate high-risk gaps from documentation-only gaps.
- Build a practical 30/60/90-day remediation sequence and evidence request list.
- Escalate areas that need specialist legal or regulatory review.
Output
- control or requirement matrix
- current-state evidence summary
- gap list with severity and rationale
- remediation plan with owners and priorities
- evidence request list for unresolved areas
Definition of done
- The target framework is explicit.
- Gaps are mapped to concrete requirements, not vague opinions.
- The output shows what to fix first and what evidence is still missing.
Examples
- "Compare our onboarding process to AML and KYC expectations and tell me the top gaps."
- "Assess our privacy operating procedures against our internal control checklist."
Quality Criteria
- Every finding is tied to a specific evidence source (log, test, metric)
- Pass/fail criteria are binary and measurable — no subjective judgments
- Severity levels are assigned with clear thresholds
- Remediation steps are provided for all critical and high findings
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.
- 4d ago First seen · 86 lines · 79 tokens per session scan A c7d2058c1487
codexkit-compliance-gap-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository hoavdc/CodexKit (21 stars, last pushed 3mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 79 tokens to every session and 708 once invoked, about $0.0004 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
architecting-security
安全架构与治理:威胁建模 (STRIDE/PASTA/LINDDUN)、零信任身份架构、IAM/SSO/MFA/PAM、合规框架 (SOC2/PCI/HIPAA/GDPR)、DLP、隐私工程、安全控制设计。Use when designing security architecture, threat modeling new systems, implementing zero-trust identity, designing IAM/SSO/PAM, building compliance evidence chains, or planning privacy-by-design.
code-review
Provides verification checklists for code review including acceptance criteria validation, specification compliance checking, OWASP security patterns, and evidence-based assessment. Use when verifying task implementation quality.
bionic-safety-net
Unified survival infrastructure: health, finance, legal safety, circuit breakers, and structural protection against all ruin classes. The last line of defense.
research-grants
Write competitive research proposals for NSF, NIH, DOE, DARPA, and Taiwan NSTC. Agency-specific formatting, review criteria, budget preparation, broader impacts, significance statements, innovation narratives, and compliance with submission requirements.
tdd-workflow
Use when implementing any feature or bugfix, before writing implementation code - write the test first, watch it fail, write minimal code to pass; ensures tests actually verify behavior by requiring failure first. Enforces RED-GREEN-REFACTOR cycle with iron-law compliance.
defending-applications
Application security defense knowledge for builders. Covers Web/API/GraphQL hardening (XSS/SQLi/SSRF/IDOR/BOLA/Mass Assignment/deserialization/upload/path traversal), authentication/authorization (OAuth 2.0/OIDC/JWT/Session/Cookie/SAML/SSO), and LLM application security (prompt injection, jailbreak, RAG poisoning…