本文へ移動
cccskills
無料GitHub で公開

agent-compliance-conformance

Audit a compliance-ladder design (C0-C6) and transcript-fidelity ladder (T0-T5) plus their adapter conformance fixtures — Codex, Claude Code, Cloudflare, Ollama/LM Studio, custom stdio/HTTP agents — for the two failure modes that make a C-badge or T-fidelity label a lie: the ladder disagreeing with itself across doc/schema/ui/probe surfaces, and a level being reachable by self-report because no daemon-witnessed negative probe actually tries to forge it. Use when designing or freezing a compliance ladder, wiring an adapter conformance probe suite, deciding whether a numeric C-badge or T-label is safe to ship, or investigating a self-attestation or observed-to-controlled bypass risk. NOT for auditing a cryptographic protocol or whitepaper for adversarial soundness (`redteam-review`), writing TLA+/formal invariants for a daemon monitor (`runtime-verification-for-agents`), or agent identity, successor linkage, and reputation across restarts (`agent-identity-continuity-reputation`).

インストール方法を見る

含まれるファイル(12)

  • SKILL.md11.5 KB
  • agents/openai.yaml1017 B
  • CHANGELOG.md372 B
  • examples/expected-output.md12.6 KB
  • examples/sample-input.json8.3 KB
  • examples/weak-input.json3.8 KB
  • README.md1.3 KB
  • references/compliance-and-fidelity-ladders.md4.7 KB
  • references/negative-probe-catalog.md4.3 KB
  • schemas/conformance-spec.schema.json5.3 KB
  • scripts/conformance_audit.mjs15.1 KB
  • templates/output-template.md2.3 KB

SKILL.md(原文)

インストールする前に、エージェントに与えられる指示の中身を確認できます。

Agent Compliance Conformance

Decide whether a compliance-ladder design and its adapter fixtures actually prove what they claim, or just perform compliance theater.

Use This For

  • Freezing a compliance ladder (C0-C6) or transcript-fidelity ladder (T0-T5) before any surface ships a numeric badge.
  • Auditing whether doc, schema, UI, and probe surfaces genuinely agree on every level's id, order, name, and required predicates.
  • Designing or reviewing an adapter conformance probe suite across Codex, Claude Code, Cloudflare, Ollama/LM Studio, and custom stdio/HTTP agents.
  • Deciding whether a forged-capability, MCP-bypass, disabled-hook, forged-heartbeat, or observed-to-controlled attack is actually caught, not just documented as a risk.
  • Investigating why a level advanced when nothing daemon-witnessed backs the claim.

Do Not Use This For

  • Adversarial review of a cryptographic protocol or whitepaper's soundness (redteam-review).
  • Writing or verifying TLA+/formal invariants for a daemon monitor process (runtime-verification-for-agents).
  • Agent identity, successor/predecessor linkage, or reputation decay across restarts (agent-identity-continuity-reputation).

Decision Model

flowchart TD
  A[Freeze one canonical ladder: id, order, name, requiredPredicates] --> B[Collect every surface: doc, schema, ui, probe]
  B --> C{Every surface identical to canonical?}
  C -->|No| D[ladder-name-order-drift: fix root cause, re-audit]
  C -->|Yes| E[Collect adapter fixtures: Codex, Claude, Cloudflare, Ollama, custom]
  E --> F{All 5 negative probes present per adapter?}
  F -->|No| G[missing-negative-probe: wire the fixture]
  F -->|Yes| H{Every fired probe downgraded honestly?}
  H -->|No| I[no-downgrade-on-forgery: fix the daemon check]
  H -->|Yes| J{Every non-base level backed by >=1 witnessed adapter?}
  J -->|No| K[level-advances-on-self-report: add a fixture before granting it]
  J -->|Yes| L[pass: true — safe to freeze and ship]
  1. Freeze one canonical ladder per axis. Compliance (C0-C6) and transcript fidelity (T0-T5) are separate axes — see references/compliance-and-fidelity-ladders.md. A level needs an id, an order, a display name, and a requiredPredicates array of structured predicate strings, never prose.
  2. Enumerate every surface that declares the ladder. Doc, schema, UI, and probe form each need their own entry; a ladder with zero entries for one of the four is an incomplete freeze, not yet a drift bug.
  3. Diff every surface against the canonical ladder. Same id must mean the same order, the same name, and the same predicate set everywhere — the binder's own docs disagree on C3's name today, which is exactly the bug this step exists to catch.
  4. Enumerate the five required negative probes per adapter fixture, per references/negative-probe-catalog.md: forged-level, direct-mcp-bypass, disabled-hook-after-launch, forged-heartbeat, observed-to-controlled.
  5. Verify each probe is present — an actual, daemon-exercised fixture, not a stubbed or planned one — and, if fired, that it downgraded the adapter's effective level. An absent downgraded flag is never assumed true.
  6. Verify every non-base level has a witness. A level with order > 0 and zero adapters backed by a present, correctly-downgrading probe is reachable by self-report alone.
  7. Fail closed. Pass only when there are zero critical findings and the score clears the bar — never treat an empty findings array from incomplete auditing as the same thing as a clean one from thorough auditing.

Output Contract

A frozen, ship-safe ladder design carries:

  • ladders: canonical id/order/name/requiredPredicates for every level on every axis in scope.
  • surfaces: a doc, schema, ui, and probe declaration per ladder, each identical to canonical.
  • adapters: one fixture per backend, each with all five negative probes present and downgraded.
  • Zero critical findings and score >= 75 from the audit.

Use scripts/conformance_audit.mjs to audit a conformance-spec JSON payload and return { pass, score, findings, recommendations }.

Anti-Patterns

Ladder Drift Across Surfaces

Novice: Ship a compliance badge because "the compliance plan doc says C3 is Suggestible" without checking that the UI component, the JSON schema, and the probe implementation agree — they don't, and now three surfaces silently mean three different things by the same number. Expert: Treat the ladder as frozen only once doc, schema, UI, and probe all declare the exact same id, order, name, and requiredPredicates for every level — diff them structurally, don't eyeball them. Detection: conformance_audit.mjs fires ladder-name-order-drift (critical) when any surface's level disagrees with or omits a canonical level, and incomplete-surface-coverage (medium) when a ladder is missing a doc, schema, ui, or probe declaration entirely.

Self-Report Without a Falsifiable Probe

Novice: Let an adapter claim C5 because the body's own status report says so, with no fixture that ever tried to forge or disprove that claim. Expert: Treat a level as earned only when a real, daemon-exercised negative-probe fixture exists for it — a documented risk with no wired fixture is a checkbox, not evidence. Detection: conformance_audit.mjs fires missing-negative-probe (critical) when a required probe kind is absent or not present for an adapter, and level-advances-on-self-report (critical) when a non-base level has zero adapters backed by any witnessed, correctly-downgrading probe.

Forgery That Slips Through

Novice: Build the direct-mcp-bypass or observed-to-controlled attack fixture, run it, watch it succeed, and ship anyway because "at least we tested it." Expert: A probe that fires and isn't caught is worse than no probe at all — it proves the exact bypass works. Fix the daemon-side check before the level can be granted, and never assume an untested downgraded outcome is safe. Detection: conformance_audit.mjs fires no-downgrade-on-forgery (critical) when a present: true probe has downgraded false or absent — fail-closed, not fail-open.

References

FileLoad When
references/compliance-and-fidelity-ladders.mdNeed the canonical C0-C6 / T0-T5 level definitions, or the exact source of the C3 naming contradiction.
references/negative-probe-catalog.mdNeed the five required probe kinds, or the exact meaning of present vs downgraded.
examples/expected-output.mdNeed to see a drifted, self-attesting ladder audited, then the same design frozen and passing.
templates/output-template.mdNeed a reusable ladder-freeze decision template to fill in.
schemas/conformance-spec.schema.jsonNeed to validate a conformance-spec JSON payload's structure before auditing it.
scripts/conformance_audit.mjsNeed deterministic scoring of a ladder design's readiness to freeze.
agents/openai.yamlNeed a subagent descriptor for delegated conformance auditing.
<!-- BEGIN BUNDLE INDEX (auto: index_references.py) -->

Skill Bundle Index

Every file in this skill, and when to open it. Auto-generated; run scripts/index_references.py --fix.

root

  • CHANGELOG.md — Agent Compliance Conformance — Changelog — - Initial skill creation - Compliance ladder (C0-C6) and transcript-fidelity ladder (T0-T5) freeze process defined - Deterministic `conforma
  • README.md — Agent Compliance Conformance — Audit a compliance-ladder design (C0-C6) and transcript-fidelity ladder (T0-T5), plus their adapter conformance fixtures, for cross-surface

agents/

examples/

references/

  • references/compliance-and-fidelity-ladders.md — Compliance Ladder And Transcript Fidelity Ladder — Use this when you need the canonical level definitions to compare a doc, schema, UI, or probe surface against, or when you need to know whic
  • references/negative-probe-catalog.md — Negative Probe Catalog — Use this when you need to know which hostile fixtures a compliance-conformance suite must run against every adapter, or need the exact meani

schemas/

scripts/

templates/

  • templates/output-template.md — Compliance Ladder Freeze Decision — Fill in every section before letting any C-badge or T-fidelity label ship.
<!-- END BUNDLE INDEX -->

レビュー

まだレビューはありません。使ってみた感想をお寄せください。

同じリポジトリのスキル

概要と使いどころ

Expert in 2000s-era music visualization (Milkdrop, AVS, Geiss) and modern WebGL implementations. Specializes in Butterchurn integration, Web Audio API AnalyserNode FFT data, GLSL shaders for audio-reactive visuals, and psychedelic generative art. Activate on "Milkdrop", "music visualization", "WebGL visualizer", "Butterchurn", "audio reactive", "FFT visualization", "spectrum analyzer". NOT for simple bar charts/waveforms (use basic canvas), video editing, or non-audio visuals.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

curiositech/port-daddy22026年10月12日 更新

Expert legal research agent for finding and scraping expungement data state by state. Knows authoritative sources, URL patterns, Firecrawl configuration, and 2026 legal landscape.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

curiositech/port-daddy22026年10月12日 更新

Expert in 3D computer vision labeling tools, workflows, and AI-assisted annotation for LiDAR, point clouds, and sensor fusion. Covers SAM4D/Point-SAM, human-in-the-loop architectures, and vertical-specific training strategies. Activate on '3D labeling', 'point cloud annotation', 'LiDAR labeling', 'SAM 3D', 'SAM4D', 'sensor fusion annotation', '3D bounding box', 'semantic segmentation point cloud'. NOT for 2D image labeling (use clip-aware-embeddings), general ML training (use ml-engineer), video annotation without 3D (use computer-vision-pipeline), or VLM prompt engineering (use prompt-engineer).

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

curiositech/port-daddy22026年10月12日 更新

Apply crisis decision-making research to agent routing, uncertainty triage, and coordination failure analysis in time-pressured systems. Use when diagnosing handoff failures, analytical paralysis, or expert judgment under incomplete information. NOT for routine coding, simple CRUD design, or static single-agent tasks with complete information.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

curiositech/port-daddy22026年10月12日 更新

Use for insight, reframing, contradiction, impasse, and anomaly-driven problem solving when execution effort no longer helps. NOT for routine optimization, error correction, or well-specified tasks with known solution paths.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

curiositech/port-daddy22026年10月12日 更新

Apply cognitive task analysis to expert work that depends on perceptual cues, branching judgment, and recurring monitoring loops. Use when decomposing expert capability into agent structure, simulation design, or validation interviews. NOT for ordinary step-by-step SOP capture or simple pipelines with no tacit cue layer.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

curiositech/port-daddy22026年10月12日 更新

curiositech のスキルをすべて見る

このスキルの問題を報告する