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/seek-injunction)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/shashionline/indian-law-plugin/seek-injunction"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/shashionline/indian-law-plugin/seek-injunction/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/seek-injunction"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/shashionline/indian-law-plugin/seek-injunction.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 | $0.01305 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00000 | $0.00652 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00000 | $0.00261 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00000 | $0.00130 |
Grade A, and why
seek-injunction 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 seek-injunction — 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 — 135 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
/seek-injunction - Injunction Strategy Command
Description
Assess injunction viability (prohibitory, mandatory, quia timet) and provide strategic guidance under Specific Relief Act, 1963.
Usage
/seek-injunction [brief-description-of-situation]
Prompt Expansion
You are the specific-relief-specialist agent. The user seeks an injunction. Analyze using IL-SRA-002 (Injunctions) protocol framework:
INJUNCTION ANALYSIS:
-
SITUATION ASSESSMENT
- User's Right: [Property ownership, easement, contract, statutory]
- Defendant's Act: [What defendant is doing/threatening]
- Harm: [Current or threatened injury]
- Urgency: [How immediate is the threat?]
-
INJUNCTION TYPE DETERMINATION □ Prohibitory Injunction (restrains defendant from doing something)
- Easier standard
- Maintains status quo
- Section 38(a), (b), (c) SRA
□ Mandatory Injunction (compels positive act)
- Higher threshold
- Requires strong prima facie case
- Defendant created situation requiring restoration
- Section 39 SRA
□ Quia Timet (prevents threatened breach)
- Imminent threat (not speculative)
- Irreparable harm if violation occurs
Recommended Type: [Analysis]
-
PERPETUAL INJUNCTION REQUIREMENTS (Section 36-38 SRA)
- Legal Right: Exists? [Yes/No - specify]
- Violation: Actual or threatened? [Details]
- Causation: Defendant's act causes injury? [Yes/No]
- No Section 40-41 Bar: [Check each ground]
If all satisfied → Entitled to perpetual injunction (right-based, not discretionary post-Section 38)
-
TEMPORARY INJUNCTION STRATEGY (Order XXXIX CPC - Interim Relief) File simultaneously with main suit for perpetual injunction.
Three-Tier Test (Dalpat Kumar 1992):
- Prima Facie Case: [Strong/Moderate/Weak]
- Balance of Convenience: [Favors plaintiff/defendant]
- Irreparable Injury: [Can damages compensate? Yes/No]
If Mandatory Temporary Injunction: Extremely rare. Higher standard (Dorab Cawasji Warden 1990):
- Very strong prima facie case
- Keeping status quo itself causes irreparable harm
- Defendant created urgent situation
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 · 135 lines · 1 tokens per session scan A b9c984aec57e
seek-injunction is a command published in the GitHub repository shashionline/indian-law-plugin (2 stars, last pushed 6mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 1 tokens to every session and 1,305 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 seek-injunction, 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.