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/triage-ndaWrote 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/triage-nda)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/kromer-group/claude-legal/triage-nda"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/kromer-group/claude-legal/triage-nda/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/triage-nda"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/kromer-group/claude-legal/triage-nda.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 | $0.00020 | $0.01418 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00010 | $0.00709 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00004 | $0.00284 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00142 |
Grade A, and why
triage-nda 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 13d 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:
- triage-nda — 100% identical, 0 lines differ
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 157 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
/triage-nda -- NDA Pre-Screening
If you see unfamiliar placeholders or need to check which tools are connected, see CONNECTORS.md.
Rapidly triage incoming NDAs against standard screening criteria. Classify the NDA for routing: standard approval, counsel review, or full legal review.
Invocation
/triage-nda
Workflow
Step 1: Accept the NDA
Accept the NDA in any format:
- File upload: PDF, DOCX, or other document format
- URL: Link to the NDA in a document system
- Pasted text: NDA text pasted directly
If no NDA is provided, prompt the user to supply one.
Step 2: Load NDA Playbook
Look for NDA screening criteria in local settings (e.g., legal.local.md).
The NDA playbook should define:
- Mutual vs. unilateral requirements
- Acceptable term lengths
- Required carveouts
- Prohibited provisions
- Organization-specific requirements
If no NDA playbook is configured:
- Proceed with reasonable market-standard defaults
- Note clearly that defaults are being used
- Defaults applied:
- Mutual obligations required (unless the organization is only disclosing)
- Term: 2-3 years standard, up to 5 years for trade secrets
- Standard carveouts required: independently developed, publicly available, rightfully received from third party, required by law
- No non-solicitation or non-compete provisions
- No residuals clause (or narrowly scoped if present)
- Governing law in a reasonable commercial jurisdiction
Step 3: Quick Screen
Evaluate the NDA against each screening criterion:
| Criterion | Check |
|---|---|
| Mutual vs. Unilateral | Are obligations mutual? If unilateral, is that appropriate for the relationship? |
| Definition of Confidential Information | Reasonable scope? Not overbroad (e.g., "all information of any kind")? |
| Term | Within acceptable range? Reasonable for the type of information? |
| Standard Carveouts | All required carveouts present? (independent development, public knowledge, third-party receipt, legal compulsion) |
| Permitted Disclosures | Can share with employees, advisors, contractors who need to know? |
| Return/Destruction | Reasonable obligations on termination? Allows retention of legal/compliance copies? |
| Residuals | If present, narrowly scoped to unaided memory? |
| Non-Solicitation | Any non-solicit provisions embedded? |
| Non-Compete | Any non-compete provisions embedded? |
| Injunctive Relief | Reasonable or one-sided? Pre-determined damages? |
| Governing Law | Acceptable jurisdiction? |
| Assignment | Reasonable assignment provisions? |
| Unusual Provisions | Any non-standard clauses that don't belong in an NDA? |
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.
- 13d ago First seen · 157 lines · 20 tokens per session scan A cd9f275f9d0f
triage-nda is a command published in the GitHub repository Kromer-Group/Claude-Legal (11 stars, last pushed 7mo ago), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 20 tokens to every session and 1,418 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.