Skip to content

0005. Remove the ai-compliance-auditor agent; Álvaro owns §6 compliance directly

Date: 2026-07-13 Status: accepted

Context

ADR-0001 set up an ai-compliance-auditor agent to audit Álvaro's AI-usage practices against the TFG regulation (§6) — declaration completeness, authorship balance, data protection, thesis consistency, and attribution — and mandated running it before each milestone release.

In practice, §6 compliance is a judgement the author must make and defend personally: the regulation makes Álvaro responsible for reviewing all AI output and for the truthfulness of the AI-usage declaration. Delegating that judgement to an agent risks the exact failure mode §6 guards against — treating a compliance verdict as something the AI produces rather than something the author owns. The audit trail the agent would read (docs/ai-usage/, Co-Authored-By trailers, ADRs) already exists and is maintained independently.

Decision

We will remove the ai-compliance-auditor agent entirely. §6 AI-usage compliance is Álvaro's direct responsibility: he reviews declaration completeness, authorship evidence, data protection, thesis consistency, and attribution himself, using the existing audit trail and the ai-declaration skill. No agent is run for compliance.

  • Delete .claude/agents/ai-compliance-auditor.md and every instruction to run it (CLAUDE.md, docs/roadmap.md, docs/development-plan.md, doc-curator).
  • The pre-release gate keeps only the codebase-sanity agent (code quality).
  • Unchanged: the §6 obligations themselves — the audit trail, the Co-Authored-By: Claude trailer, the ai-declaration skill, the quarantined data/private/, and the data-protection rules all stand.

This supersedes the ai-compliance-auditor element of ADR-0001's AI-governance decision; the rest of ADR-0001 stands.

Alternatives considered

  • Keep the agent, run it before releases (ADR-0001). Rejected by Álvaro: a compliance verdict is the author's to make; an agent producing it blurs the authorship line §6 exists to protect.
  • Keep the agent but make it advisory/on-demand only. Rejected: leaves a standing tool whose output could be mistaken for the compliance sign-off, for no benefit over the author reading the same audit trail directly.

Consequences

  • Clearer authorship: the §6 compliance judgement is unambiguously Álvaro's, which is itself the strongest evidence of human authorship.
  • One less agent to maintain; the pre-release ritual is just codebase-sanity.
  • Accepted: no automated pre-flight for declaration/attribution gaps — Álvaro performs that review manually (the audit trail makes it a quick pass).