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 m3taz-ahmed/ai-globals --skill compliance-lordgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/m3taz-ahmed/ai-globalsWrote 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/m3taz-ahmed/ai-globals/compliance-lord)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/m3taz-ahmed/ai-globals/compliance-lord"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/m3taz-ahmed/ai-globals/compliance-lord/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/m3taz-ahmed/ai-globals/compliance-lord"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/m3taz-ahmed/ai-globals/compliance-lord.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" 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 5.1 | $0.00040 | $0.01892 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00020 | $0.00946 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00008 | $0.00378 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00189 |
Grade A, and why
compliance-lord 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 — 96 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Compliance Lord
[OBJ] Map regulatory requirements to enforceable aiZee rules. Compliance is not a document — it is a policy gate.
Problem
Gartner published the first Magic Quadrant for AI Governance Platforms (June 2026). Enterprises need a governance program of record for EU AI Act, ISO 42001, and NIST AI RMF. PDFs and wikis are not enforcement.
Rules
- [REQ] EU AI Act mapping. Map aiZee rules to EU AI Act articles:
- Art. 9 (Risk management) →
runtime/policy.pyrisk classification - Art. 10 (Data governance) →
runtime/supply_chain_guard.py+ data provenance - Art. 12 (Logging) →
runtime/audit.pytamper-evident log - Art. 13 (Transparency) →
runtime/composite_identity.pyattribution - Art. 14 (Human oversight) →
runtime/guardian.pyhuman-in-the-loop - Art. 15 (Accuracy/robustness) →
eval/reliability.pyreliability@k
- Art. 9 (Risk management) →
- [REQ] NIST AI RMF mapping. Map to four functions:
- GOVERN →
global-roles.md+ policy engine - MAP →
runtime/spec_engine.pyspec-driven context - MEASURE →
eval/reliability.py+eval/harness.py - MANAGE →
runtime/agent_gateway.py+runtime/guardian.py
- GOVERN →
- [REQ] ISO 42001 mapping. Map to AI management system clauses:
- Clause 4 (Context) →
spec.md+ACTIVE_CONTEXT.md - Clause 6 (Planning) →
workflows/01-planning.md - Clause 8 (Operation) →
runtime/kernel.py5-gate pipeline - Clause 9 (Performance evaluation) →
eval/harness.py+aizee test --full - Clause 10 (Improvement) →
workflows/06-maintenance.md+Memory.md
- Clause 4 (Context) →
- [REQ] Risk tier classification. Classify every AI action into tiers:
minimal(code formatting) → auto-allowlimited(code generation) → allow + audithigh(deploy, DB migration) → ask + human approvalunacceptable(mass PII collection) → deny always
- [REQ] Audit trail retention. Audit logs retained per regulatory minimum (EU AI Act: 6 months post-deployment; ISO: per org policy).
runtime/audit.pyrotation respects this. - [REQ] Data residency. Flag actions that move data across residency boundaries (PDPL for Saudi, GDPR for EU). Cross-boundary = WARN + LEGAL review.
- [REQ] Right to explanation. Every high-tier action must produce a human-readable explanation from the audit trail.
audit.read_entries()+composite_identity.resolve(). - [REQ] Model card. Every model in
runtime/agent_catalog.pyhas a model card: provider, tier, training cutoff, known limitations. - [REQ] Incident reporting.
workflows/19-incident-response.mdextended with regulatory notification timelines (EU AI Act Article 73: 15 days for ordinary serious incidents, 2 days for widespread infringement or critical-infrastructure disruption, 10 days where a death occurred). - [REQ] Conformity assessment. Before release, run
aizee compliance check— maps all rules to regulatory articles and reports coverage gaps. - [REQ] Documentation as evidence.
Memory.md,CHANGELOG.md,spec.mdserve as compliance evidence. Stale docs = compliance gap. - [REQ] Third-party AI. Any third-party AI tool (Cursor, Claude, Copilot) used in the SDLC must be registered in
runtime/agent_catalog.pywith its risk tier. - [PROHIBIT] Deploying a high-tier AI action without human approval + audit trail.
- [PROHIBIT] Deleting audit logs before regulatory retention minimum.
- [PROHIBIT] Cross-residency data movement without LEGAL persona review.
- [PROHIBIT] Claiming compliance without a completed
aizee compliance checkreport. - [REQ] EU AI Act Digital Omnibus. Regulation (EU) 2026/1744 published 24 July 2026, in force 27 July 2026. Annex III high-risk deferred to 2 December 2027. Annex I high-risk deferred to 2 August 2028. Article 5 original prohibitions in force since 2 February 2025; Digital Omnibus new prohibitions effective 2 December 2026. Article 50 transparency (chatbot disclosure, AI-content labeling) in force 2 August 2026 — NOT deferred. Penalties up to €35M or 7% of global turnover.
- [REQ] UAGT crosswalk. Map aiZee rules to Unified AI Governance Taxonomy (8 regulation-stable domains) reconciling ISO 42001, NIST AI RMF, and EU AI Act. One audit, three frameworks.
- [REQ] ISO 42001 UKAS certifications. UKAS-accredited certifications went live January 2026. ISO 42001 is now procurement table stakes. EU AI Act Article 40 allows harmonized standards (likely ISO 42001) for presumption of conformity.
- [REQ] MITRE mapping. Map aiZee detection rules to MITRE ATLAS v2026.06, ATT&CK v19.1, CWE 4.20, and CSA AI Controls Matrix v1. Cross-reference with OWASP LLM/ASI Top 10s.
- [REQ] Article 50 transparency. Ensure AI-generated content is labeled, chatbot disclosure is present, and deepfake detection metadata is attached. Non-compliance = penalty.
- [REQ] Incident notification timelines. EU AI Act Article 73: 15 days for ordinary serious incidents (Art 73(2)); 2 days for widespread infringement or serious and irreversible disruption of critical infrastructure (Art 73(3)); 10 days where a person has died (Art 73(4)). Update
workflows/19-incident-response.mdwith regulatory notification templates per tier. - [ALIGN] Gartner/Forrester market alignment. Align aiZee governance features with Gartner Magic Quadrant for Enterprise AI Coding Agents (May 2026) [VERIFY: cite licensed copy] and Forrester Agentic Development Platforms Landscape, Q3 2026 (RES198045) [VERIFY: cite licensed copy]. 12-field audit schema for procurement. These are market alignment targets, NOT legal compliance requirements.
- [REQ] Vendor independence. Position against market consolidation (Promptfoo→OpenAI, Portkey→Palo Alto, Langfuse→ClickHouse, Helicone→Mintlify, Lakera→Check Point). Open, self-hostable governance = competitive moat.
- [PROHIBIT] Claiming EU AI Act compliance without Digital Omnibus deadline tracking.
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 Changed 11527db48749
- 6d ago Changed · +9 lines d1f6ed55b3e6
- 12d ago First seen · 87 lines · 40 tokens per session scan A cd040a1965df
compliance-lord is a skill published in the GitHub repository m3taz-ahmed/ai-globals (5 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed MIT. It adds 40 tokens to every session and 1,892 once invoked, about $0.0002 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 2026-08-31.
Other skills, from other repositories
specification-writing
A workflow for writing complete patent specifications from patent claims and an invention disclosure. It adapts the document to a chosen jurisdiction, such as the US, Europe, or China.
regulatory-research-fallback
Fallback workflow for regulatory research when web extraction tools fail on government PDFs.
x-scorecard
OpenSSF Scorecard for assessing open source project security. Check security best practices and compliance. Dependency: This is an x-cmd module. Install x-cmd first (see x-cmd skill for installation options). see x-cmd skill for installation.
gesellschaftsrechtliche-satzungen-agb
Für Gesellschaftsrechtliche Satzungen AGB Abgrenzung: ordnet Norm, Beweislast und Gegenargument; Ergebnis: Prüfprodukt mit Risiko und nächstem Schritt. Fachgebiet: AGB-Recht-Prüfer. Route: gesellschaftsrechtliche-satzungen-agb.
memstack-business-gdpr
Use this skill when the user says 'GDPR', 'data protection', 'privacy compliance', 'DPA', 'DSAR', 'data subject request', 'cookie consent', 'privacy audit', 'CCPA', or asks 'do I need GDPR for this repo'. Scans the repository to detect what personal data is collected, classifies sensitivity, determines whether GDPR…
nda-review
Use when the user uploads or pastes a non-disclosure agreement and asks for review, redline, risk assessment, or a recommendation on whether to sign. Identifies missing standard protections, one-sided or unusual provisions, and operational issues; produces a structured report with severity ratings and citations to…