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 vendor-ai-reviewgit 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/vendor-ai-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/anthropics/claude-for-legal/vendor-ai-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/anthropics/claude-for-legal/vendor-ai-review/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/vendor-ai-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/anthropics/claude-for-legal/vendor-ai-review.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>- Socket pass
- Snyk pass
- 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 Rogue Agent · line 30 Skill establishes unauthorized persistence across sessions via cron jobs, startup scripts, or state files. Session persistence allows an attacker to maintain access beyond the current interaction.Fix: Remove any persistence mechanisms (cron jobs, startup scripts, state files). Skills should not maintain state across sessions without explicit user consent.
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 | $0.00087 | $0.04759 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00044 | $0.02380 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00017 | $0.00952 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00009 | $0.00476 |
Grade A, and why
vendor-ai-review 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
1 near-identical copy found in the catalogue:
- vendor-ai-review — 86% identical, 30 lines differ
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 324 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
/vendor-ai-review
- Read
~/.claude/plugins/config/claude-for-legal/ai-governance-legal/CLAUDE.md. Confirm vendor governance positions are populated — if not, stop and direct to setup. - Use the framework below.
- Confirm document type (AI addendum / main agreement AI provisions / ToS). If only an AUP was provided, ask for the full terms.
- Term-by-term review: training on data, confidentiality of inputs, model changes, output IP, liability, incident notification, human review rights, use restrictions, audit rights.
- AI addendum gap check if DPA exists but no AI addendum.
- AI policy consistency diff vs.
~/.claude/plugins/config/claude-for-legal/ai-governance-legal/CLAUDE.md. - Output: bottom line, term-by-term, recommended redlines, if-they-won't-move routing.
/ai-governance-legal:vendor-ai-review openai-enterprise-agreement.pdf
Matter context
Matter context. Check ## Matter workspaces in the practice-level CLAUDE.md. If Enabled is ✗ (the default for in-house users), skip the rest of this paragraph — skills use practice-level context and the matter machinery is invisible. If enabled and there is no active matter, ask: "Which matter is this for? Run /ai-governance-legal:matter-workspace switch <slug> or say practice-level." Load the active matter's matter.md for matter-specific context and overrides. Write outputs to the matter folder at ~/.claude/plugins/config/claude-for-legal/ai-governance-legal/matters/<matter-slug>/. Never read another matter's files unless Cross-matter context is on.
Purpose
Vendor AI terms are where your governance positions actually get tested. The cold-start interview captures what you want. This skill checks what you agreed to — and flags the gaps between those two things.
The direction here is always the same: we are the deployer or buyer reviewing the vendor's terms. This is the opposite posture from the DPA review controller/processor question — there's no flip.
What varies is the input:
- A standalone AI agreement or AI addendum (most structured)
- A vendor's universal terms of service with AI provisions embedded (often buried)
- An acceptable use policy (tells you what you can't do; says nothing about what the vendor can do with your data or outputs)
- A combination — master agreement + DPA + AI addendum (common for serious enterprise AI vendors)
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 · 324 lines · 87 tokens per session scan A 32506aea8fba
vendor-ai-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository anthropics/claude-for-legal (9,433 stars, last pushed 22d ago), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 87 tokens to every session and 4,759 once invoked, about $0.0004 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…