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/kws-projects/react-boilerplate/consent-managementnpx skills add kws-projects/react-boilerplate --skill consent-managementgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/kws-projects/react-boilerplateWrote 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/kws-projects/react-boilerplate/consent-management)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/kws-projects/react-boilerplate/consent-management"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/kws-projects/react-boilerplate/consent-management.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 | $0.00000 | $0.01317 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00000 | $0.00659 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00000 | $0.00263 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00000 | $0.00132 |
Grade A, and why
consent-management 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 — 173 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Consent Management
Integrate or modify consent handling for GA4 Consent Mode v2. Use when launching in a consent-required market (EU/EEA, UK, Brazil LGPD, etc.), integrating a Consent Management Platform (CMP), or modifying the default consent posture.
Current state
Consent defaults to granted in src/lib/analytics.ts. No CMP is
integrated. This is appropriate when the target market has no legal requirement
for prior user consent before analytics tracking.
When to change
You must switch to a consent-denied default when any of these apply:
- Launching in the EU/EEA or UK (GDPR / ePrivacy Directive)
- Launching in Brazil (LGPD)
- Launching in a jurisdiction with similar consent-before-tracking laws
- Your organisation's privacy policy requires opt-in consent regardless of market
Migration guide — adding consent management
Step 1: Change the default consent posture
In src/lib/analytics.ts, inside init(), replace the granted defaults:
// Before (current — consent granted by default)
gtag('consent', 'default', {
analytics_storage: 'granted',
ad_storage: 'granted',
ad_user_data: 'granted',
ad_personalization: 'granted',
})
// After (consent denied until user grants)
gtag('consent', 'default', {
analytics_storage: 'denied',
ad_storage: 'denied',
ad_user_data: 'denied',
ad_personalization: 'denied',
wait_for_update: 500, // ms to wait for CMP to load
})
Step 2: Integrate a CMP
Choose one of the following approaches:
Option A: Third-party CMP (recommended for production)
Popular CMPs with Google Consent Mode v2 support:
- Cookiebot — automatic geo-detection, plug-and-play script tag
- OneTrust — enterprise-grade, geo-specific banner rules
- Usercentrics — strong EU compliance, Google CMP partner
- Cookie Information — simple setup, Google-certified
These CMPs automatically call gtag('consent', 'update', {...}) when the user
interacts with the banner. No custom code needed beyond loading their script.
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 · 173 lines · 0 tokens per session scan A 27e0bdcadc9e
consent-management is a skill published in the GitHub repository kws-projects/react-boilerplate (3 stars, last pushed 3mo ago), licensed MIT. It costs nothing until one of its globs matches a file; then it loads 1,317 tokens. 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 2026-08-31.
Other skills, from other repositories
check-code-attribution
Per-file check of vendored code attribution in the current branch diff, including license headers, THIRDPARTYNOTICES.md entries, and compatibility with Sentry's licensing policy.
i18n-date-patterns
Implements internationalization (i18n) in React applications. Covers user-facing strings, date/time handling, locale-aware formatting, ICU MessageFormat, and RTL support. Use when building multilingual UIs or formatting dates/currency.
anvil-adsense-audit
AdSense 申请前全站体检——按 Google 官方政策(计划政策/发布商政策/内容质量/抓取可达/隐私合规)逐项审计站点是否达到申请标准,模板已解决的项直接给证据,fork 用户侧的项逐项判定,输出 Pass/Fail/Unknown/N/A 完整表格 + Blocker/High/Medium 分级裁决。触发词:adsense 审计 / 能不能申请 adsense / 被拒了帮我看下 / 申请前自查 / adsense audit / 过审。.
full-after-care
Tiefe Pflegerunde für ein veröffentlichtes GitHub-Repository (Stufe 2): enthält den vollständigen surface-after-care-Durchlauf und ergänzt ihn um drei teure Schritte — rechtliche Ersteinschätzung über die Law-Checker mit Wiedervorlage nach einem Jahr (Gutachten bleibt gitignored im Repo), Querverweise zu verwandten…
i18n
Flutter 국제화(i18n) 가이드라인. flutterlocalizations, intl, ARB 파일 관리, RTL 레이아웃, 복수형/성별 처리, 런타임 로캘 전환.
Risk Factor Review
Use when reviewing the risk-factor section of an S-1, 10-K, 10-Q, S-4, proxy, PPM, or OM to produce a draft specificity-vs-boilerplate matrix, consistency notes, and category-coverage gaps for attorney review, without concluding adequacy of disclosure.