s4h-ethics-consent-review

s4h-ethics-consent-review is a skill for Claude Code from human-avatar/skills-for-humanity. It costs 120 tokens per session (1,504 once invoked), scanned A, original, MIT.

A review of whether a person's consent is informed, freely given, and meaningful. Consent means a real understanding and choice, not merely clicking a checkbox.

In plain words
What is it for?
Check checkout, onboarding, notification, permission, and terms-of-service flows. Use it to examine whether users can understand, refuse, and change their choices without unfair pressure.
Why use it?
Buried explanations, unequal choices, and manipulative defaults can make consent only appear voluntary. This review finds those problems in user experiences and communications.

Skill for Claude Code

Written for Claude Code: shipped in a Claude Code plugin. Also seen: names the AskUserQuestion tool.

Part of the skills-for-humanity plugin — 197 skills, 1 hook shipped together

Good fit Check checkout, onboarding, notification, permission, and terms-of-service flows. Use it to examine whether users can understand, refuse, and change their choices without unfair pressure.

Compare 6 skills from other repositories ↓
Install with agentmods
npx agentmods add skills/human-avatar/skills-for-humanity/s4h-ethics-consent-review
Install

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.

Any agent
npx skills add human-avatar/skills-for-humanity --skill s4h-ethics-consent-review
Clone the repo
git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/human-avatar/skills-for-humanity

Made for: Claude Code.

Or install skills-for-humanity, the plugin that ships this one along with the rest of its 197 skills, 1 hook.

Wrote 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.

agentmods badge for s4h-ethics-consent-review

README.md
[![agentmods](https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/human-avatar/skills-for-humanity/s4h-ethics-consent-review/github.svg)](https://agentmods.dev/skills/human-avatar/skills-for-humanity/s4h-ethics-consent-review)
Your own site
<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/human-avatar/skills-for-humanity/s4h-ethics-consent-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/human-avatar/skills-for-humanity/s4h-ethics-consent-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.

agentmods 80×15 button for s4h-ethics-consent-review

Your own site · 80×15
<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/human-avatar/skills-for-humanity/s4h-ethics-consent-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/human-avatar/skills-for-humanity/s4h-ethics-consent-review.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>
Per session 120 Skills are progressive disclosure: only the name and description are preloaded; the body loads when the skill is used.
When invoked 1,504 The whole file, excluding the scripts and references it only reads on demand.
Security scan A 0 findings. A grade says what 26 rules found in the file — not that it is safe. Third-party audits
  • NVIDIA SkillSpector pass 7 Sept 2026
How audits are shown
Origin original No closer match found in the catalogue.
Token cost

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.

ModelPer sessionOnce invoked
Fable 5.1 $0.00120 $0.01504
Opus 5 $0.00060 $0.00752
Sonnet 5 $0.00024 $0.00301
Haiku 4.5 $0.00012 $0.00150

Measured 9d ago against content hash 1c825cd83a28, method: parsed. Prices are Anthropic first-party input rates as of 2026-09-12, from the pricing page.

Security

Grade A, and why

s4h-ethics-consent-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 9d 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.

skills/s4h-ethics-consent-review/SKILL.md · 128 lines

How it starts

The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 128 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.

Consent is not a checkbox. It is a meaningful act by a person who understands what they're agreeing to, genuinely has the option to decline, and isn't being manipulated into compliance.

Most consent failures aren't malicious — they're the accumulated result of copy-paste terms, optimised conversion flows, and defaults set by people who never questioned them. This review surfaces those failures before they become patterns users resent or regulators flag.


The Three Tests

Every consent decision must pass three tests:

Informed — Does the person genuinely understand what they're agreeing to? Not technically (buried in ToS), but practically. If you explained it plainly in conversation, would they be surprised?

Voluntary — Does the person genuinely have the ability to decline? Is declining as easy as accepting? Are there consequences for declining that make the choice effectively coerced?

Meaningful — Does the person's choice actually matter? Is there genuine optionality, or is the "choice" cosmetic — the default is set to the outcome the business wants and the friction to change it is high?


Your Process

Step 1: Map the consent moment What specifically is the user being asked to consent to? When in the flow does this happen? What is the default? What happens if they decline?

Framing check: Confirm the ethical situation and the parties affected before continuing. State what you've identified — the specific consent moment, the UX or data practice under review, and who is giving consent — in one sentence, then use AskUserQuestion:

  • Question: "I'm reading this as: [your one-sentence framing of the specific consent moment and context]. Is that right?"
  • Header: "Framing"
  • Options:
    • Yes — proceed — framing is correct
    • Adjust — one element is off; user will correct it before you continue
    • Reframe — different situation than read; incorporate the correction before proceeding

Read the full file on GitHub · 128 lines

Changes

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.

  1. 9d ago First seen · 128 lines · 120 tokens per session scan A 1c825cd83a28

Subscribe to this mod's changes

s4h-ethics-consent-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository human-avatar/skills-for-humanity (223 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 120 tokens to every session and 1,504 once invoked, about $0.0006 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 2026-09-03.

Related

Other skills, from other repositories

customer-journey-map

Visualize every touchpoint a customer has with a product or service — stages, actions, emotions, pain points, opportunities.

tupe12334/instinct · 31 tokens

double-diamond

Design problems with two diamond phases: Discover/Define (right problem), Develop/Deliver (right solution).

tupe12334/instinct · 25 tokens

token-audit

Audit a design system's token definitions for naming violations, missing semantic tiers, and structural debt. This audits how tokens are defined and organised, NOT how they are consumed in code. Trigger when someone says: audit my tokens, token naming review, are my tokens consistent, token health check, review my…

murphytrueman/design-system-ops · 93 tokens

codebase-index

Generate a pre-computed component index from a design system codebase — YAML infrastructure files containing a component inventory, relationship graph, and summary statistics that AI agents and MCP servers consume. This produces machine-readable index files in .ai/index/, NOT a health report or quality assessment.…

murphytrueman/design-system-ops · 132 tokens

prototype

Use when asked to prototype one design question through a cheap logic or UI experiment, including button-driven state-model checks. Not for polished artifacts: use polished-web-prototype.

OutlineDriven/odin-claude-plugin · 36 tokens

review-design

Review digital artifacts against the user’s task, creative direction, functional and accessibility requirements, and actual delivery medium. Inspect renders, native files, playback or interaction as appropriate; exercise relevant failure and recovery paths and report evidence-backed findings. Use for design review or…

doodledood/manifest-dev · 67 tokens