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 GTMify/aigtm --skill contract-reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/GTMify/aigtmWrote 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/gtmify/aigtm/contract-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/gtmify/aigtm/contract-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/gtmify/aigtm/contract-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/gtmify/aigtm/contract-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/gtmify/aigtm/contract-review.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>- NVIDIA SkillSpector warn
SkillSpector: 1 finding, up to high
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 →
- high Anti-Refusal · line 107 Skill instructs the agent to omit warnings, disclaimers, or ethical commentary. Stripping safety caveats hides risk from the user and is a common jailbreak preamble.Fix: Remove instructions that suppress warnings, disclaimers, or ethical commentary. Let the agent surface safety-relevant caveats to the user.
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 | $0.00076 | $0.01472 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00030 | $0.00589 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00015 | $0.00294 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00008 | $0.00147 |
Grade A, and why
contract-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 1mo 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 — 113 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Contract Review
This is operational scaffolding, not legal advice. For any contract over $10K, any lease, any partnership, or anything with personal guarantees — have a licensed attorney in your state review before signing. This skill catches obvious issues; an attorney catches the rest.
Use this skill if you run a small business and someone just sent you a 14-page contract with three days to sign.
Your Role
You are a former general counsel who now coaches SMB owners. You read contracts as a working document — what does this actually obligate me to do, what gives the other side leverage, and what would a competent business person push back on? You translate every clause that matters into plain English and clearly mark what's standard, what's negotiable, and what's a hard no.
Process
Step 1: Identify the contract type
Common SMB contracts:
| Type | What to watch for |
|---|---|
| NDA / Confidentiality | Mutual vs. one-way, duration, scope of "confidential info," carve-outs, jurisdiction |
| Vendor MSA / Service Agreement | Auto-renewal, termination rights, payment terms, liability caps, IP ownership, SLA |
| Commercial Lease | Term, rent escalators (CAM, taxes, insurance), personal guarantee, holdover, assignment, default cure period |
| Statement of Work (SOW) | Deliverables, acceptance criteria, change order process, payment schedule, late fees |
| Independent Contractor | Scope, IP assignment, exclusivity, classification language (1099 vs. employee), termination |
| Customer Order Form / Sales Contract | Term, auto-renewal, indemnity, limitation of liability, refund/credit, data ownership |
| Partnership / Reseller | Revenue split, exclusivity, termination, IP, dispute resolution |
| Loan / Credit / Personal Guarantee | Personal guarantee scope, default triggers, acceleration, collateral |
Step 2: Read top-to-bottom and flag
Go through the contract section by section. For each clause that matters, produce:
What ships with it
2 files beside SKILL.md in the same directory: the scripts, references and assets a skill reads on demand. Not counted in the per-session cost; read them before you install if any of them is executable.
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.
- 1mo ago First seen · 113 lines · 76 tokens per session scan A f75d85b64d02
contract-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository GTMify/aigtm (25 stars, last pushed 23d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 76 tokens to every session and 1,472 once invoked, about $0.0003 per session on Opus 5.5. 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
playbook-social-engineering
Social engineering assessment — phishing campaigns, vishing, physical tests, GoPhish setup. Load when the engagement scope explicitly includes social engineering or physical testing.
67-agency-vendor-brief
Dung khi thue NGUOI NGOAI lam — agency, freelancer, production house, vendor: scope of work, spec deliverable, so vong sua, quy trinh duyet, moc thanh toan, dieu khoan IP va bao mat, bang danh gia vendor sau du an. Kich hoat khi user nhac 'brief agency', 'thue freelancer', 'quan ly vendor', 'scope of work', 'agency…
aenderungsvorbehalt-308
Für Änderungsvorbehalt 308: ordnet Norm, Beweislast und Gegenargument; Ergebnis: Prüfprodukt mit Risiko und nächstem Schritt.
agb-begriff-vorformuliert-305
Für AGB Begriff Vorformuliert 305: ordnet Norm, Beweislast und Gegenargument; Ergebnis: Prüfprodukt mit Risiko und nächstem Schritt. Fachgebiet: AGB-Recht-Prüfer. Route: agb-begriff-vorformuliert-305.
bankvertrag-sparkassen-bauvertrag-vob
Für AGB im Bankvertrag Sparkassen und Banken: ordnet Norm, Beweislast und Gegenargument; Ergebnis: Prüfprodukt mit Risiko und nächstem Schritt. Fachgebiet: AGB-Recht-Prüfer. Route: bankvertrag-sparkassen-bauvertrag-vob.
beweislast-und-zugang-309
Für Beweislast und Zugang 309: ordnet Norm, Beweislast und Gegenargument; Ergebnis: Beweislast- und Substantiierungsmatrix.