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
NEVER execute or modify code during compliance checks
— this skill assesses policy alignment only; any implementation must happen separately after compliance is confirmed.
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.
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.
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.
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:
Creator guard and artifact lifecycle rules
Routing and specialist-first requirements
Security and quality gate requirements
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-Pattern
Why It Fails
Correct Approach
Implementing code during compliance check
Conflates assessment with implementation
Assess only; implementation happens separately after PASS
Skipping compliance for "small" changes
Small changes introduce policy violations silently
Run compliance check proportionally for all HIGH/EPIC work
Reporting PASS on partial compliance
Masks unresolved violations; gives false confidence
Report CONDITIONAL with specific remediation required
Vague violation reports without remediation
Violations aren't fixed without clear next steps
Include agent, task, and target file for every FAIL/CONDITIONAL
Only checking once before implementation
Post-change compliance drift goes undetected
Recheck 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
.