Getting it into your agent
This one installs as part of its plugin. Adding the marketplace and installing the plugin brings it with everything else the plugin ships.
/plugin marketplace add edenbuilds/arya-ai/plugin install arya-aiWrote this? Show the measurements
A badge with what this costs and how it scanned, read live from this page, so it follows the numbers instead of freezing them. Markdown for a README, HTML for a documentation site or a project page.
[](https://agentmods.dev/commands/edenbuilds/arya-ai/appeal-strategy)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/edenbuilds/arya-ai/appeal-strategy"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/edenbuilds/arya-ai/appeal-strategy/github.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" height="20"></a>Or the 80×15 button, for a site that already has a row of RSS and ATOM ones. Only the verdict fits; the numbers stay here.
<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/edenbuilds/arya-ai/appeal-strategy"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/edenbuilds/arya-ai/appeal-strategy.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>What it costs to keep this loaded
Counted locally with the o200k_base tokenizer, which is exact for GPT models; Claude uses its own tokenizer and its counts differ. Treat this as one consistent yardstick across the catalogue rather than a bill. Prices are per million input tokens.
| Model | Per session | Once invoked |
|---|---|---|
| Fable 5.1 | $0.00004 | $0.04604 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00002 | $0.02302 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00001 | $0.00921 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00000 | $0.00460 |
Grade A, and why
appeal-strategy scanned grade A with 0 findings against 26 rules in 11 categories — prompt injection, anti-refusal, data exfiltration, privilege escalation, supply chain, agent snooping, system-prompt leakage, SSRF and excessive agency — measured 10d ago.
A static scan of the body, not an audit. Every finding is printed with the line that produced it so you can judge whether it matters here. A mod is markdown that instructs an agent; that is exactly why what it instructs is worth reading.
Nothing flagged
None of the 26 patterns this scan looks for appear in this file: no shell pipes, no recursive deletes, no credential paths, no hidden text, no instruction-override or anti-refusal phrasing, no agent-config snooping. That is not a guarantee, it is the absence of the things that are checkable.
Copies of this mod
1 near-identical copy found in the catalogue:
- appeal-strategy — 100% identical, 0 lines differ
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 586 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
You are assisting with criminal appeals and revision applications in India.
Task: Guide user through appellate strategy and draft appeal/revision applications.
Workflow:
-
Read Protocol:
- Read
/Users/swarochishchekuri/Downloads/ClaudeBrain_test/Protocols/criminal_law/IL-CRIM-APPEALS.mdfor comprehensive appellate guidance
- Read
-
Gather Information: Ask user (if not provided):
- What is being appealed? (Conviction, acquittal, sentence)
- Which court's order? (Magistrate, Sessions Court, High Court)
- Date of order: When was judgment/order passed?
- Grounds for appeal: Why should appellate court interfere?
- Conviction details (if applicable): Offence, sentence awarded
- Already in custody?: Is appellant in jail?
- Bail status: If convicted, is appellant on bail or in custody?
-
Determine Appeal Type and Forum:
**APPELLATE HIERARCHY**: **1. Appeal to Sessions Court** (Section 374 CrPC / 432 BNSS): - **From**: Order of Magistrate - **Who can appeal**: Convicted person OR Prosecution (limited) - **Timeline**: 30 days from date of order - **Scope**: Appeal on facts and law **2. Appeal to High Court** (Sections 374, 377, 378 CrPC / 432-436 BNSS): A. **Against Sessions Court Conviction** (Section 374): - Appeal by convicted person - Timeline: 30 days from conviction - Scope: Facts, law, quantum of sentence B. **Against Acquittal** (Section 378): - Appeal by State/Complainant (with leave) - Timeline: 60 days from acquittal - High Court can reverse acquittal C. **Reference by Sessions Judge** (Section 377): - If Sessions Court awards death sentence → mandatory confirmation by High Court **3. Appeal to Supreme Court** (Article 134 / Section 379 CrPC / 437 BNSS): - **From**: High Court judgment - **Timeline**: 60 days from High Court order - **When**: If High Court certifies case fit for appeal OR Special Leave Petition (Article 136) **4. Special Leave Petition (SLP)** (Article 136): - **To**: Supreme Court directly - **From**: Any court order (if appeal not available) - **Timeline**: 90 days from order - **Discretionary**: Supreme Court decides whether to grant leave **5. Revision Application** (Section 397 CrPC / 456 BNSS): - **Not an appeal** - revisional jurisdiction - Filed before Sessions Court or High Court - Against orders of subordinate courts - **Limited scope**: Illegality, jurisdictional error, material irregularity -
Check Limitation Period:
**LIMITATION PERIODS**: | Appeal Type | Timeline | Condonable? | |-------------|----------|-------------| | Appeal to Sessions Court | 30 days | Yes (sufficient cause) | | Appeal to High Court (conviction) | 30 days | Yes (sufficient cause) | | Appeal to High Court (acquittal) | 60 days | Yes (sufficient cause) | | Appeal to Supreme Court | 60 days | Yes (if High Court certificate) | | SLP to Supreme Court | 90 days | Limited discretion | | Revision | No fixed period | Court's discretion | **Delay Condonation**: - File application for condonation of delay - Show "sufficient cause" for delay - Attach supporting documents (medical certificates, etc.) -
Identify Grounds for Appeal:
**COMMON GROUNDS FOR APPEAL**: **A. Against Conviction**: 1. **Perverse Findings of Fact**: - Trial court findings contrary to evidence - Appreciation of evidence illegal/improper - Ignored material evidence 2. **Burden of Proof Not Discharged**: - Prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt - Benefit of doubt should have been given 3. **Evidence Inadmissible**: - Evidence should not have been admitted (e.g., no Section 65B certificate) - Confession to police wrongly admitted (Section 25 violation) 4. **Procedural Violations**: - No Section 313 examination (fatal irregularity - Rahim Beg case) - Illegal arrest/search (D.K. Basu violation) - Charge not framed properly 5. **Misapplication of Law**: - Wrong offence applied - Essential ingredients not proved - Exception should have been accepted 6. **Circumstantial Evidence Defective**: - Chain incomplete (Panchsheel Principles not met) - Alternative hypothesis not excluded **B. Against Acquittal** (By State): 1. **Perverse Acquittal**: - Acquittal shocking to judicial conscience - Evidence clearly established guilt but ignored 2. **Misreading of Evidence**: - Trial court misread/ignored prosecution evidence NOTE: High Court interference with acquittal rare (double presumption of innocence) **C. Against Sentence** (Even if conviction upheld): 1. **Sentence Excessive**: - Not proportionate to offence - Mitigating factors ignored - First-time offender treated harshly 2. **Sentence Inadequate** (State appeal): - Heinous offence but lenient sentence - Deterrence required
What this file has done since we first saw it
Hashed on every crawl. A supply-chain change to an agent config is a question of when, not whether, so the history is kept rather than the latest state alone.
- 10d ago First seen · 586 lines · 4 tokens per session scan A f87b3ffb2b99
appeal-strategy is a command published in the GitHub repository edenbuilds/arya-ai (3 stars, last pushed 2mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 4 tokens to every session and 4,604 once invoked, about $0.0000 per session on Opus 5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. No closer match exists in the catalogue, so it is treated as the original; first seen 2026-08-31.
Other commands, from other repositories
deps-audit
Audit project dependencies for vulnerabilities, outdated packages, license conflicts, and supply chain risks — then provide actionable remediation strategies.
review-epo-claims
Analyze patent claims for EPO Art. 84 EPC compliance - clarity, conciseness, support by description.
voice-compliance
Voice/telephony compliance check — invokes voice-ai-reviewer to produce TM-voice-{slug}.md with TCPA, STIR/SHAKEN, state recording-consent, EU AI Act Art. 50, and synth-voice deepfake-law gaps.
review-policy
Review a policy document for structure, coverage, and language quality.
at-dsgvo
You are helping an enterprise architect generate an Austrian Data Protection Assessment — the Austrian-specific GDPR layer applied by the Datenschutzbehörde (DSB) under the Datenschutzgesetz (DSG 2018, BGBl. I Nr. 165/1999 as amended). Run this after /arckit:eu-rgpd to add Austrian obligations that go beyond the EU…
au-pspf
You are an enterprise architect generating a Protective Security Policy Framework (PSPF) compliance assessment for an Australian Government entity or contractor handling government information.