hipaa-compliance-auditor
Veto GatesRequired pass for any deployment consideration
| Dimension | Result | Detail |
|---|---|---|
| Scientific Integrity | PASS | The archived evaluation preserved source-faithful writing behavior without adding unsupported results or conclusions. |
| Practice Boundaries | PASS | The archived review kept this package within A clinical-grade PII/PHI detection and de-identification tool for healthcare text data, not result fabrication or expert advice. |
| Methodological Ground | PASS | The older review treated the package logic as methodologically aligned with its stated workflow. |
| Code Usability | PASS | The legacy audit did not flag code-usability issues for the packaged hipaa-compliance-auditor workflow. |
Core Capability88 / 100 — 8 Categories
Medical TaskExecution Average: 83.6 / 100 — Assertions: 18/20 Passed
The archived evaluation treated A clinical-grade PII/PHI detection and de-identification tool for... as a clean in-scope run.
The Use this skill for academic writing tasks that require explicit... scenario completed within the documented A clinical-grade PII/PHI detection and de-identification tool for healthcare text data boundary.
The archived run for A clinical-grade PII/PHI detection and de-identification tool for... confirmed the helper entrypoint and left the workflow in a stable state.
The Packaged executable path(s): scripts/main.py scenario completed within the documented A clinical-grade PII/PHI detection and de-identification tool for healthcare text data boundary.
This stress case was mostly intact, but the archived review centered its concern on: The output stays within declared skill scope and target objective.
Key Strengths
- Primary routing is Academic Writing with execution mode B
- Static quality score is 88/100 and dynamic average is 83.6/100
- Assertions and command execution outcomes are recorded per input for human review