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.
npx skills add akiotanaka847/qaio-desktop --skill review-a-contractgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/akiotanaka847/qaio-desktopWrote 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/skills/akiotanaka847/qaio-desktop/review-a-contract)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/akiotanaka847/qaio-desktop/review-a-contract"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/akiotanaka847/qaio-desktop/review-a-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/skills/akiotanaka847/qaio-desktop/review-a-contract"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/akiotanaka847/qaio-desktop/review-a-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 | $0.00068 | $0.02058 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00034 | $0.01029 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00014 | $0.00412 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00007 | $0.00206 |
Grade A, and why
review-a-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 11d 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.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 96 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Review a Contract
One skill for first-read of counterparty contract. mode pick depth. Structured clause extraction + "never invent clause-standard can't cite" discipline shared.
Parameter: mode
full- full MSA / DPA / order-form review: clause map + Green (accept) / Yellow (pushback OK) / Red (redline required) verdict per clause + plain-English summary + accept / redline / walk rec. Writes tocontract-reviews/{counterparty}-{YYYY-MM-DD}.md.nda-traffic-light- fast 6-dimension rubric for inbound NDAs (term, mutuality, confidential-info definition, carve-outs, jurisdiction, non-solicit smuggling, return/destruction). Writes tondas/{counterparty-slug}-{YYYY-MM-DD}.mdwith specific redlines on every Red item.clauses-only- structured extraction, no verdict. Reads supplied contract (file / URL / paste), extracts clauses that matter (term, termination, renewal, liability cap, indemnity, IP, governing law, DPA, AI training, data residency, exit rights), writes human-readable map toclause-extracts/{counterparty}-{YYYY-MM-DD}.md, updatescounterparty-tracker.jsonwith key fields.
User name mode in plain English ("traffic-light this", "just extract the clauses", "full review with a verdict") → infer. Ambiguous → ask ONE question naming 3 options.
When to use
- Explicit: "review this contract", "traffic-light this NDA", "is this signable?", "what's in this agreement", "extract clauses".
- Plain-English asks map to a
mode: "fully review this customer contract / MSA" / "is this MSA safe to sign" →full; "quick check on this NDA" / "is this NDA OK to sign" →nda-traffic-light; "just lay out the clauses" / "pull out the clauses, no verdict" / "review the IP clause" (runfulland lead with the IP section) →clauses-onlyorfullwith IP focus. - Implicit: called by
sort-my-legal-inboxwhen detects MSA / NDA / DPA and routes to review. Chained intoplan-contract-pushbackwhen output has any Red items.
Ledger fields I read
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.
- 11d ago First seen · 96 lines · 68 tokens per session scan A 88c0ae71a3a7
review-a-contract is a skill published in the GitHub repository akiotanaka847/qaio-desktop (2 stars, last pushed 8d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 68 tokens to every session and 2,058 once invoked, about $0.0003 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 2026-08-31.
Other skills, from other repositories
contracts
Use when drafting or reviewing business contracts and clauses in plain language — NDAs, MSAs, SOWs, contractor agreements, risk boilerplate (liability caps, indemnity, force majeure, termination, IP) — or redlining a counterparty's paper. NOT consumer Terms of Service (that is terms-conditions) and NOT the signing…
lawyer-expert
Expert-level legal systems, contracts, compliance, and legal technology. Use when the user mentions legal, contracts, compliance, law, or legal tech, or when the task involves Legal Systems, Legal Technology, Compliance Frameworks, or Contract Management.
legaltech-expert
Expert in legal technology: contract lifecycle management, e-discovery, AI-assisted legal research, case and matter management, document automation, and compliance tooling. Use when the user mentions legal case or matter management, e-discovery and legal holds, CLM or contract review and obligation tracking, legal…
Contract Drafter
Generate legal contracts from templates with variable substitution and clause management.
Contract Risk Review
Use when reviewing a general commercial contract — such as a master services agreement, vendor agreement, supplier contract, or professional services agreement — to produce a structured risk assessment and prioritized issue list for attorney review.
NDA Review
Use when reviewing a non-disclosure or confidentiality agreement to produce a triage rating (route, flag, or stop), a structured risk summary, and prioritized redline points for attorney review.