Getting it into your agent
One page per mod, every tool's command on it. A separate URL per tool would split the same page into five that compete with each other.
git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/shashionline/indian-law-pluginWrote 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/shashionline/indian-law-plugin/breach-analysis)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/shashionline/indian-law-plugin/breach-analysis"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/shashionline/indian-law-plugin/breach-analysis/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/shashionline/indian-law-plugin/breach-analysis"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/shashionline/indian-law-plugin/breach-analysis.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 | $0.02768 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00002 | $0.01384 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00001 | $0.00554 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00000 | $0.00277 |
Grade A, and why
breach-analysis 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.
This is a copy
100% identical to breach-analysis — 0 lines differ, which has more behind it and is treated as the original. This page carries a canonical link to it rather than competing with it.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 303 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Breach Analysis Command
Task: Comprehensive analysis of contract breach with remedies evaluation, quantum calculation, and strategic recommendations.
Workflow
-
Gather Breach Context:
- Contract details: Type, parties, subject matter, consideration, date
- Breach specifics: What was breached? When? By whom?
- Breach type: Actual vs anticipatory, material vs non-material
- Current status: Pre-litigation, litigation filed, judgment
- Your position: Plaintiff (innocent party) or defendant (alleged breacher)
-
Load Relevant Protocols:
- IL-CONTRACT-BREACH: Breach classification
- IL-CONTRACT-DAMAGES: Hadley v. Baxendale, quantum calculation
- IL-CONTRACT-SPECIFIC-PERFORMANCE: Viability assessment
- IL-CONTRACT-INJUNCTION: Appropriateness evaluation
- IL-CONTRACT-RESCISSION: Eligibility check
- Special contract protocols (if applicable)
-
Breach Classification:
A. Actual vs Anticipatory (Hochster v. De La Tour):
- Actual: Failure to perform when due
- Anticipatory: Repudiation before due date
- Innocent party options: (1) Sue immediately OR (2) Affirm and wait (risk: frustration)
B. Material vs Non-Material:
- Material: Goes to root of contract → Can terminate + damages
- Non-Material: Minor breach → Damages only (cannot terminate)
C. Condition vs Warranty (Sale of Goods Act):
- Condition breach: Essential term → Reject goods + damages OR accept + damages
- Warranty breach: Non-essential → Damages only
-
Remedies Analysis (Use contract-remedies-expert agent):
A. Damages Calculation (Section 73-75):
Hadley v. Baxendale Framework:
-
Limb 1 (Natural Consequences): Reasonably foreseeable loss
- Formula: Market price - Contract price (if non-delivery)
- Example: Contract Rs. 10L, market Rs. 12L → Damages Rs. 2L
-
Limb 2 (Special Damages): Parties knew at contract formation
- Example: Seller knew buyer needed for specific contract → Loss from that contract recoverable
-
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 · 303 lines · 4 tokens per session scan A 3ea152561324
breach-analysis is a command published in the GitHub repository shashionline/indian-law-plugin (2 stars, last pushed 6mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 4 tokens to every session and 2,768 once invoked, about $0.0000 per session on Opus 5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 100% identical to breach-analysis, differing in 0 lines, and is treated as a copy.
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.