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 darthzen/fossa-mcp --skill fossa-license-reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/darthzen/fossa-mcpWrote 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/darthzen/fossa-mcp/fossa-license-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/darthzen/fossa-mcp/fossa-license-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/darthzen/fossa-mcp/fossa-license-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/darthzen/fossa-mcp/fossa-license-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/darthzen/fossa-mcp/fossa-license-review.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 | $0.00085 | $0.03923 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00043 | $0.01962 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00017 | $0.00785 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00009 | $0.00392 |
Grade A, and why
fossa-license-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 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.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 283 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
fossa-license-review
Read a project's licensing findings and full dependency list out of FOSSA, establish how the customer actually distributes their software, classify every license by the obligations it creates rather than by its name, and report which findings require action for this customer and which are noise.
Why this workflow exists: FOSSA tools return license names. "GPL-3.0" is not a verdict; it is an input to one. The same license is a shipping blocker in a publicly distributed binary and a non-event in a SaaS backend, and a linter with a copyleft license usually obligates nobody. The judgment that converts names into obligations lives here, not in the API.
The honest framing, stated up front and never dropped: the obligation classes below are settled, mainstream readings of these licenses, but the distribution model and linkage facts they key off are your assessment of the customer's situation, gathered in step 1. State that basis in the report. A finding classified against a guessed distribution model is worse than an unclassified one.
For a ranked score across a portfolio instead of a per-project obligations audit, use [[fossa-suggest-score]] — same copyleft tiers, quantitative track. This skill is the qualitative audit. Ask which project if it isn't named. Everything else below is procedure.
1. Establish the distribution model first
Everything downstream depends on this, so ask — or infer from the repo, deployment config, or what the user has already said — before pulling a single finding. Four models, in descending order of how much they obligate:
- Publicly distributed — binary, app store package, installer, npm/PyPI package, embedded firmware. Every distribution-triggered obligation is live.
- Distributed to customers — on-prem installs, appliances, SDKs shipped under contract. Same obligations as public distribution; the audience is smaller but the trigger is identical.
- SaaS-only — the code runs on the customer's servers and only its output reaches users. GPL, LGPL, and MPL obligations do not reach this deployment, because they trigger on distribution of the software itself. AGPL is the exception that does reach SaaS — flag it loudly. Its network-interaction clause is exactly the case the license was written for.
- Internal-only — tooling, services, and scripts that never leave the organization. Almost nothing fires; attribution obligations technically attach to copies but there is no external audience — no distributed artifact means no NOTICE file to ship, which is how step 4 states the same fact.
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 · 283 lines · 85 tokens per session scan A 472289a351c6
fossa-license-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository darthzen/fossa-mcp (1 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 85 tokens to every session and 3,923 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 2026-08-31.
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…