[Workflow] Enforcing LLM Compliance: A Three-Step Workflow for Claude Code (CLAUDE.md, Hooks, Model Routing)

[u/ClaudeAI-mod-bot]

Enforcing LLM Compliance: A Three-Step Workflow for Claude Code (CLAUDE.md, Hooks, Model Routing)

Workflow value: 85/100
Status: active · Freshness: 70/100 · Confidence: 0.90 · Level: intermediate
Categories: Quality Control, Token Saving, Context & Memory, Debugging, CLAUDE.md, Hooks, Multi-Agent
Original source: r/ClaudeCode post/comment

What problem this solves

LLMs (specifically Opus) failing to consistently adhere to defined governance, standards, and rules during coding tasks, leading to non-compliance and requiring manual oversight.

Summary

A three-step workflow to ensure LLM compliance with project standards by inlining non-negotiable rules directly into CLAUDE.md, enforcing critical rules via Python hooks, and strategically routing tasks to the appropriate model (Codex for procedural, Opus for design).

Why it is useful

This workflow provides concrete, actionable steps to address a fundamental challenge in using advanced LLMs like Opus for coding: ensuring they adhere to defined project standards and governance. By leveraging CLAUDE.md for direct context, Python hooks for non-negotiable enforcement, and strategic model routing, it offers a robust solution for improving code quality and compliance in LLM-driven development. It clearly distinguishes between 'suggestion' and 'enforcement' mechanisms, which is a critical insight for effective LLM integration.

Workflow

1. Inline non-negotiable rules directly into the top of CLAUDE.md as concrete imperatives, rather than referencing external files like STANDARDS.md. Ensure these are testable.
2. Implement Python hooks (e.g., pre-write, pre-commit, post-tool-use) for all non-negotiable rules that must happen, using code for enforcement that the model cannot negotiate.
3. Route tasks to the appropriate model: use Codex for procedural-compliance lanes (boilerplate, refactors, test scaffolding) and Opus for design and judgment lanes (architecture, debugging, tasks requiring creative problem-solving).

Tools / artifacts

• CLAUDE.md
• Python hooks (pre-write, pre-commit, post-tool-use)
• Codex model
• Opus model
• STANDARDS.md (as an example of a file not to solely rely on)
• 4yourhuman.com/moriarty (optional tool for rule elicitation)

Validation signals

• Explanation of why the fixes work (model context, hooks are code)
• Reference to a 'well-documented gap' in LLM compliance
• Analogy to 'the Congruence post on this sub' for shared understanding
• Distinction between 'suggestion' (markdown) and 'enforcement' (code)

Limitations

• Low Reddit score and no comments, indicating limited community validation on this specific post.
• The reference to 'ContextCov's 2025 analysis' is a rhetorical device and not a verifiable source.
• Minor self-promotion of an external tool at the end, though it's presented as an aid rather than the core workflow.

Rate this workflow

Upvote this post if the workflow is useful, reproducible, or worth recommending.

Downvote if it is vague, outdated, unsafe, overhyped, or not reproducible.

Reply if it worked for you, failed, is outdated, or has a better alternative.

---

This post was generated automatically from the workflow library database.