本文へ移動
cccskills
無料GitHub で公開

compliance-policy-check

Validate planned changes against local framework rules and policy guardrails before implementation or creation.

インストール方法を見る

含まれるファイル(10)

  • SKILL.md4.0 KB
  • commands/compliance-policy-check.md123 B
  • hooks/post-execute.cjs324 B
  • hooks/pre-execute.cjs441 B
  • references/research-requirements.md408 B
  • rules/compliance-policy-check.md304 B
  • schemas/input.schema.json589 B
  • schemas/output.schema.json267 B
  • scripts/main.cjs1.1 KB
  • templates/implementation-template.md197 B

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。

Compliance Policy Check

Overview

Evaluate a design/plan against framework policy and rule constraints before execution. Use this for regulated or high-risk changes.

When to Use

  • Before creator workflows for new artifacts
  • Before HIGH/EPIC implementation phases
  • During reflection when repeated policy violations are observed

Iron Laws

  1. NEVER execute or modify code during compliance checks — this skill assesses policy alignment only; any implementation must happen separately after compliance is confirmed.
  2. ALWAYS run compliance check before HIGH/EPIC implementation — high-risk changes that bypass compliance checks create undetected policy drift that compounds over time into systemic violations.
  3. ALWAYS report findings with specific remediation tasks and owning agent — vague "policy violation" reports without actionable remediation steps don't produce fixes; every FAIL and CONDITIONAL must include a concrete task.
  4. NEVER report PASS on partial compliance — a plan that satisfies 80% of policies is a CONDITIONAL, not a PASS; partial compliance masks the remaining violations and gives false confidence.
  5. ALWAYS recheck after remediation, not just once — a single compliance check before implementation is insufficient; verify again after major changes to confirm remediations are complete.

Workflow

Step 1: Gather Policy Context

  • Read relevant files in .claude/rules/
  • Read applicable workflow/agent constraints
  • Read enforcement hook docs if needed

Step 2: Evaluate Proposed Change

Assess against:

  1. Creator guard and artifact lifecycle rules
  2. Routing and specialist-first requirements
  3. Security and quality gate requirements
  4. Memory/search/token-saver policy expectations

Step 3: Produce Decision

Return one policy decision:

  • PASS: policy-aligned
  • CONDITIONAL: allowed with required mitigations
  • FAIL: not policy-compliant

Use this output shape:

{
  "decision": "PASS|CONDITIONAL|FAIL",
  "policyFindings": ["..."],
  "requiredMitigations": [],
  "evidencePaths": ["..."],
  "recommendedNextStep": "..."
}

Output Protocol

For CONDITIONAL and FAIL, include precise remediation tasks and ownership (agent type).

Anti-Patterns

Anti-PatternWhy It FailsCorrect Approach
Implementing code during compliance checkConflates assessment with implementationAssess only; implementation happens separately after PASS
Skipping compliance for "small" changesSmall changes introduce policy violations silentlyRun compliance check proportionally for all HIGH/EPIC work
Reporting PASS on partial complianceMasks unresolved violations; gives false confidenceReport CONDITIONAL with specific remediation required
Vague violation reports without remediationViolations aren't fixed without clear next stepsInclude agent, task, and target file for every FAIL/CONDITIONAL
Only checking once before implementationPost-change compliance drift goes undetectedRecheck compliance after major implementation changes

Memory Protocol

Record recurring policy drift patterns in .claude/context/memory/issues.md and stabilized controls in .claude/context/memory/decisions.md.

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

Ensure accessibility in UI components including semantic HTML, ARIA attributes, keyboard navigation, and WCAG 2.2 AA compliance.

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。

oimiragieo/agent-studio432026年7月14日 更新

Use when you want to improve response quality through meta-cognitive reasoning. Applies 15+ reasoning methods to reconsider and refine initial outputs.

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。

oimiragieo/agent-studio432026年7月14日 更新

N-round opposing-stance debates for trade-off analysis. Assigns pro/con roles to agents, runs structured debate rounds with quality scoring, and produces a moderator synthesis with confidence-rated recommendation. Generalizable to architecture, technology, security, and design decisions.

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。

oimiragieo/agent-studio432026年7月14日 更新

Force adversarial code review stance that eliminates confirmation bias — reviewer must find issues or re-analyze

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。

oimiragieo/agent-studio432026年7月14日 更新

Creates specialized AI agents on-demand when no existing agent matches a request. Use when the Router cannot find a suitable agent for a task. Enables self-evolution by generating persistent agents.

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。

oimiragieo/agent-studio432026年7月14日 更新

LLM-as-judge evaluation framework with 5-dimension rubric (accuracy, groundedness, coherence, completeness, helpfulness) for scoring AI-generated content quality with weighted composite scores and evidence citations

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。

oimiragieo/agent-studio432026年7月14日 更新

oimiragieo のスキルをすべて見る

このスキルの問題を報告する