Claude for Legal is a collection of AI agents, skills, and data connectors for legal work such as commercial, privacy, employment, litigation, regulatory, and intellectual-property matters. Lawyers and legal teams use it through Claude Cowork, Claude Code, or the Claude Managed Agents API, with attorney review required for every output. The catalogue entries are its workflow plugins, skills, agents, and connectors.
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 anthropics/claude-for-legal --skill reg-gap-analysisgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/anthropics/claude-for-legalWrote 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/anthropics/claude-for-legal/reg-gap-analysis)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/anthropics/claude-for-legal/reg-gap-analysis"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/anthropics/claude-for-legal/reg-gap-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/skills/anthropics/claude-for-legal/reg-gap-analysis"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/anthropics/claude-for-legal/reg-gap-analysis.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>- Socket pass
- Snyk warn
- NVIDIA SkillSpector warn
SkillSpector: 1 finding, up to medium
These are SkillSpector’s own severities. On a checked sample its high-severity flags on skills were ~96% false positives — a documented command, a public API, a “never do X” rule — so we show them as a caution to read, not a verdict. Why →
- medium Excessive Agency · line 187 Skill enables autonomous high-impact decisions without human-in-the-loop verification. Critical operations (destructive commands, financial transactions, data deletion) should require explicit user confirmation.Fix: Add human-in-the-loop confirmation for destructive, irreversible, or high-impact operations. Never auto-execute commands that modify files, send data, or alter system state.
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 | $0.00090 | $0.03194 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00045 | $0.01597 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00018 | $0.00639 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00009 | $0.00319 |
Grade A, and why
reg-gap-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 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
2 near-identical copies found in the catalogue:
- reg-gap-analysis — 92% identical, 16 lines differ
- reg-gap-analysis — 92% identical, 20 lines differ
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 242 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
/reg-gap-analysis
- Read
~/.claude/plugins/config/claude-for-legal/ai-governance-legal/CLAUDE.md. Confirm regulatory footprint and use case registry are populated. - Use the framework below.
- Scope: does this regulation apply? (Jurisdiction, threshold, builder/deployer, sector.) If not, one line and done.
- Extract requirements. Diff against current state in
~/.claude/plugins/config/claude-for-legal/ai-governance-legal/CLAUDE.md. - Prioritize gaps. Output: remediation plan with must-do / should-do / already compliant / accepted gaps.
- Save as dated markdown doc for the file.
/ai-governance-legal:reg-gap-analysis "EU AI Act high-risk provisions"
Purpose
The EU AI Act goes live. Colorado passes an AI law. The CFPB issues model risk guidance. The FTC publishes an AI enforcement policy. Something moves — and now you need to know what, if anything, you have to change.
This skill diffs the new requirement against your current AI governance posture
(per ~/.claude/plugins/config/claude-for-legal/ai-governance-legal/CLAUDE.md — use case registry, vendor positions, impact assessment practices,
and AI policy commitments) and produces a gap list with a remediation plan.
The AI regulatory landscape is moving faster than any other area of law right now. When a regulation is genuinely ambiguous, say so. Don't paper over uncertainty — legal teams need to know when they're on solid ground versus when they're making a judgment call.
Load current state
Read ~/.claude/plugins/config/claude-for-legal/ai-governance-legal/CLAUDE.md:
## Regulatory footprint— what already applies## Use case registry— what AI you're actually running, and under what conditions## AI policy commitments— what you've publicly or contractually committed to## Vendor AI governance— what vendor positions are in place## Impact assessment house style— what assessment practices exist
If the regulation clearly doesn't apply (wrong jurisdiction, below threshold, wrong sector, builder/deployer distinction eliminates you from scope), say so directly: "Doesn't apply. Here's why: [reason]. No action needed."
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 · 242 lines · 90 tokens per session scan A a04f5e78fe5b
reg-gap-analysis is a skill published in the GitHub repository anthropics/claude-for-legal (9,433 stars, last pushed 21d ago), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 90 tokens to every session and 3,194 once invoked, about $0.0005 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 skills, from other repositories
specification-writing
A workflow for writing complete patent specifications from patent claims and an invention disclosure. It adapts the document to a chosen jurisdiction, such as the US, Europe, or China.
regulatory-research-fallback
Fallback workflow for regulatory research when web extraction tools fail on government PDFs.
x-scorecard
OpenSSF Scorecard for assessing open source project security. Check security best practices and compliance. Dependency: This is an x-cmd module. Install x-cmd first (see x-cmd skill for installation options). see x-cmd skill for installation.
gesellschaftsrechtliche-satzungen-agb
Für Gesellschaftsrechtliche Satzungen AGB Abgrenzung: ordnet Norm, Beweislast und Gegenargument; Ergebnis: Prüfprodukt mit Risiko und nächstem Schritt. Fachgebiet: AGB-Recht-Prüfer. Route: gesellschaftsrechtliche-satzungen-agb.
memstack-business-gdpr
Use this skill when the user says 'GDPR', 'data protection', 'privacy compliance', 'DPA', 'DSAR', 'data subject request', 'cookie consent', 'privacy audit', 'CCPA', or asks 'do I need GDPR for this repo'. Scans the repository to detect what personal data is collected, classifies sensitivity, determines whether GDPR…
nda-review
Use when the user uploads or pastes a non-disclosure agreement and asks for review, redline, risk assessment, or a recommendation on whether to sign. Identifies missing standard protections, one-sided or unusual provisions, and operational issues; produces a structured report with severity ratings and citations to…