Getting it into your agent
It runs from inside its repository, so the clone comes first — what it calls does not travel with the file alone.
git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/Kromer-Group/Claude-Legalnpx agentmods add commands/kromer-group/claude-legal/review-contractWrote 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/kromer-group/claude-legal/review-contract)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/kromer-group/claude-legal/review-contract"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/kromer-group/claude-legal/review-contract/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/kromer-group/claude-legal/review-contract"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/kromer-group/claude-legal/review-contract.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 | $0.00021 | $0.01579 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00010 | $0.00790 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00004 | $0.00316 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00158 |
Grade A, and why
review-contract 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 12d 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:
- review-contract — 100% identical, 0 lines differ
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 170 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
/review-contract -- Contract Review Against Playbook
If you see unfamiliar placeholders or need to check which tools are connected, see CONNECTORS.md.
Review a contract against your organization's negotiation playbook. Analyze each clause, flag deviations, generate redline suggestions, and provide business impact analysis.
Invocation
/review-contract
Workflow
Step 1: Accept the Contract
Accept the contract in any of these formats:
- File upload: PDF, DOCX, or other document format
- URL: Link to a contract in your CLM, cloud storage (e.g., Box, Egnyte, SharePoint), or other document system
- Pasted text: Contract text pasted directly into the conversation
If no contract is provided, prompt the user to supply one.
Step 2: Gather Context
Ask the user for context before beginning the review:
- Which side are you on? (vendor/supplier, customer/buyer, licensor, licensee, partner -- or other)
- Deadline: When does this need to be finalized? (Affects prioritization of issues)
- Focus areas: Any specific concerns? (e.g., "data protection is critical", "we need flexibility on term", "IP ownership is the key issue")
- Deal context: Any relevant business context? (e.g., deal size, strategic importance, existing relationship)
If the user provides partial context, proceed with what you have and note assumptions.
Step 3: Load the Playbook
Look for the organization's contract review playbook in local settings (e.g., legal.local.md or similar configuration files).
The playbook should define:
- Standard positions: The organization's preferred terms for each major clause type
- Acceptable ranges: Terms that can be agreed to without escalation
- Escalation triggers: Terms that require senior counsel review or outside counsel involvement
If no playbook is configured:
- Inform the user that no playbook was found
- Offer two options:
- Help the user set up their playbook (walk through defining positions for key clauses)
- Proceed with a generic review using widely-accepted commercial standards as the baseline
- If proceeding generically, clearly note that the review is based on general commercial standards, not the organization's specific positions
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.
- 12d ago First seen · 170 lines · 21 tokens per session scan A 5e6ab577c63a
review-contract is a command published in the GitHub repository Kromer-Group/Claude-Legal (11 stars, last pushed 7mo ago), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 21 tokens to every session and 1,579 once invoked, about $0.0001 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 2026-08-30.
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.