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 vinayaklatthe/microsoft-security-skills --skill purview-data-classificationgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/vinayaklatthe/microsoft-security-skillsWrote 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/vinayaklatthe/microsoft-security-skills/purview-data-classification)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/vinayaklatthe/microsoft-security-skills/purview-data-classification"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/vinayaklatthe/microsoft-security-skills/purview-data-classification/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/vinayaklatthe/microsoft-security-skills/purview-data-classification"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/vinayaklatthe/microsoft-security-skills/purview-data-classification.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 | $0.00106 | $0.01259 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00053 | $0.00629 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00021 | $0.00252 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00011 | $0.00126 |
Grade A, and why
purview-data-classification 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.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 90 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Microsoft Purview Data Classification & Sensitivity Labels
Classification identifies sensitive content; sensitivity labels apply persistent protection (visual marking, encryption, access, and downstream DLP/lifecycle controls). Together they are the foundation of Microsoft Information Protection and every Purview enforcement story.
When to use
Defining what data is sensitive and applying a consistent label taxonomy across Microsoft 365, Power BI/Fabric, and (via Purview Data Map) the broader estate.
Do not use this skill for AI prompt visibility (use purview-dspm-ai) or for full strategy
sequencing (use purview-information-governance).
Pick the right detection method
| Use case | Method |
|---|---|
| Well-known regulated patterns (credit card, NI, SSN, IBAN) | Sensitive Information Types (SITs) - built-in |
| Org-specific keywords / regex | Custom SITs with confidence tuning |
| Concept-based ("this looks like a contract") | Trainable classifiers (built-in or custom) |
| Match against your own customer/HR list | Exact Data Match (EDM) - hashed structured data |
| Hybrid - regex + supporting evidence | SIT with named entities + proximity |
Rule of thumb: SITs for patterns, classifiers for concepts, EDM for "is this row from our actual customer table". Don't try to make one method do all three jobs.
Approach
- Inventory regulatory and business drivers - List the data types you must detect (GDPR PII, PCI, IP, HR) and map each to a detection method. Verify: each detection candidate has a named business owner.
- Choose detection methods - Pick SITs, trainable classifiers, or EDM per data type; build or tune confidence levels. Verify: a test corpus of true and false positives is prepared per detector.
- Design a label taxonomy - Keep it simple (e.g., Public / General / Confidential / Highly Confidential) with sub-labels; define markings, encryption, and scope per label. Verify: ≤4 top-level labels, ≤3 sub-labels each, named with business language not jargon.
- Publish labels - Use label policies to scope labels to users; set defaults and mandatory labelling where appropriate; configure mandatory-label justification. Verify: pilot users see the label menu in Word/Outlook with the correct default.
- Auto-labelling - Use client-side (recommended/automatic in apps) and service-side auto-labelling (SharePoint/OneDrive/Exchange) based on SITs/classifiers; always start in simulation. Verify: simulation reports show match counts per label and per source; review false-positive sample.
- Roll out in waves - Pilot department -> business unit -> tenant; pair every wave with training and a feedback channel. Verify: label adoption metric per wave > target before promoting.
- Extend - Labels flow into DLP, Data Lifecycle, DSPM for AI, and Defender for Cloud Apps - confirm downstream policies key off the new labels.
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.
- 9d ago First seen · 90 lines · 106 tokens per session scan A 471388336c8a
purview-data-classification is a skill published in the GitHub repository vinayaklatthe/microsoft-security-skills (173 stars, last pushed 2mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 106 tokens to every session and 1,259 once invoked, about $0.0005 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.
Other skills, from other repositories
rfp-response-compliance-review
Reviews a draft proposal against the firm's configurable compliance rules — prohibited language, required disclosures, role and positioning boundaries, and procurement-submission requirements. Logs all findings to the Review Findings SharePoint list and annotates the draft document for salesperson and reviewer…
power-automate
Use when operating Microsoft Power Automate cloud flows from code — create, enable, update, list or delete via the Dataverse Web API (workflow table, category 5) with Entra ID OAuth2, plus run-history debugging. NOT designing the flow definition (that is automation-flows), NOT picking a platform by billing model (that…
carta-witness-signatures
Status of witness and spousal-consent signature requests on option grants, RSAs, PIUs — who still needs to sign, and what's awaiting signature, signed, or expired. Covers one award, one company, or a whole portfolio. Read-only.
carta-hmrc-limits
Report a UK company's HMRC EMI/CSOP limit usage. Use when asked how much EMI allowance is left, whether the company is near the £6m EMI limit, who is close to or over their £250k individual limit, CSOP headroom, or whether a planned grant fits.
carta-interaction-reference-core
The non-negotiable half of Carta's AI agent interaction rules — financial precision, data provenance, the AI-computation gate, how to confirm, and trust & safety. Loaded ONCE per conversation, before any response that presents or writes Carta financial data. Sufficient on its own for write flows; a flow that also…
compliance-verifier
Use this agent to validate deployments against GDPR, HIPAA, SOC2, and other regulatory compliance frameworks and generate audit reports.