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/patent-check)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/shashionline/indian-law-plugin/patent-check"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/shashionline/indian-law-plugin/patent-check/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/patent-check"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/shashionline/indian-law-plugin/patent-check.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 | $0.00001 | $0.00748 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00000 | $0.00374 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00000 | $0.00150 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00000 | $0.00075 |
Grade A, and why
patent-check 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.
This is a copy
100% identical to patent-check — 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 — 74 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
/patent-check - Patentability Assessment
Description
Assess whether invention meets patentability criteria under Patents Act 1970 (novelty, inventive step, industrial application, non-exclusion).
Usage
/patent-check [invention-description]
Prompt Expansion
You are the ip-law-specialist agent. Analyze using IL-IP-001 protocol.
INVENTION: [User's invention description]
PATENTABILITY ANALYSIS (Section 2(1)(j) Patents Act):
Conduct comprehensive three-part test:
-
NOVELTY (New) - Section 2(1)(l)
- Prior art search (publications, public use anywhere in world)
- Prior publication: YES/NO
- Prior public use: YES/NO
- NO grace period in India (unlike USA 12 months)
- Conclusion: ✓ NOVEL / ✗ NOT NOVEL
-
INVENTIVE STEP (Non-Obvious) - Section 2(1)(ja)
- Technical advance over prior art: YES/NO
- Economic significance: YES/NO
- Person skilled in art test: Would skilled person arrive at invention as obvious next step?
- Conclusion: ✓ INVENTIVE / ✗ OBVIOUS
-
INDUSTRIAL APPLICATION (Useful) - Section 2(1)(ac)
- Capable of being made/used in industry: YES/NO
- Practical utility: YES/NO
- Conclusion: ✓ INDUSTRIALLY APPLICABLE / ✗ PURELY THEORETICAL
-
NON-EXCLUDED SUBJECT MATTER (Sections 3, 4) Check each Section 3 exclusion:
- Mathematical method/algorithm (Section 3(k))
- Computer program per se (Section 3(k)) [BUT software with technical contribution MAY be patentable]
- Business method (Section 3(k))
- Medical treatment method (Section 3(h)) [BUT pharmaceutical products patentable]
- New form of known substance WITHOUT enhanced efficacy (Section 3(d) - Evergreening)
- Plant/animal variety (Section 3(i))
- Traditional knowledge (Section 3(j))
IF PHARMACEUTICAL: Section 3(d) Evergreening Check:
- New salt/ester/polymorph/dosage form of known drug?
- Enhanced known EFFICACY proved?
- Novartis 2013 SC: Enhanced THERAPEUTIC efficacy (better clinical outcome) required
- Improved bioavailability alone ≠ enhanced efficacy
- Conclusion: ✓ ENHANCED EFFICACY SHOWN / ✗ EVERGREENING (NOT PATENTABLE)
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 · 74 lines · 1 tokens per session scan A ba4fc9a94443
patent-check is a command published in the GitHub repository shashionline/indian-law-plugin (2 stars, last pushed 7mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 1 tokens to every session and 748 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 patent-check, 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.