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 LegalQuants/lq-skills --skill dpa-art28git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/LegalQuants/lq-skillsWrote 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/legalquants/lq-skills/dpa-art28)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/legalquants/lq-skills/dpa-art28"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/legalquants/lq-skills/dpa-art28/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/legalquants/lq-skills/dpa-art28"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/legalquants/lq-skills/dpa-art28.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 | $0.00197 | $0.04202 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00098 | $0.02101 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00039 | $0.00840 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00020 | $0.00420 |
Grade A, and why
dpa-art28 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 — 194 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
DPA Art. 28 GDPR — Review, Drafting & Redlining
Purpose
This skill governs all work on controller–processor contracts (Art. 28 GDPR) and joint-controller arrangements (Art. 26 GDPR). It produces:
- Reviews of existing DPAs (quick or negotiation-grade)
- Drafts of new DPAs / AVVs from modular templates (DE / EN)
- Redlines in response to counterparty drafts
- Joint Controller Agreements (JCA / Art.-26-Vereinbarung)
Who this is for, and what kind of work this is
Operator. This skill is written for a privacy or commercial lawyer, or a trained paralegal working under attorney supervision — someone who can read a DPA clause and exercise judgement on the output, not a lay business user. It assumes legal literacy but no special AI fluency beyond describing the scenario and the side you act for in plain language.
Work shape. The work is bounded and transactional: a single contract (or counterparty draft) reviewed, drafted, or redlined against a fixed Art. 28 / Art. 26 benchmark, clause by clause — pattern-matched against known requirements and defect catalogues, not open-ended advisory. That bounded shape is what lets the skill take a structured, checklist-driven posture; anything outside the pattern (novel structures, contested law, transfer-risk judgement calls) is surfaced and handed back, not resolved silently.
Status of the output. What this skill produces is drafting and review support — not legal advice, and not in itself a privileged work product. Treat storage, sharing, and retention per your firm's work-product and privilege policy; the attorney–client relationship and any privilege attach through the supervising lawyer, not through this skill.
Mode router — ALWAYS run first
Before doing anything else, classify the request into ONE of these modes:
| Mode | Trigger pattern | Workflow file |
|---|---|---|
REVIEW_QUICK |
"Is this DPA compliant?", "Art. 28(3)(a)–(h) check", short turnaround, sign/no-sign decision needed | workflows/review-quick.md |
REVIEW_NEG |
"Review this for negotiation", "give me redline points", "what should we push back on", deeper diligence | workflows/review-negotiation.md |
DRAFT |
"Draft a DPA", "create an AVV", "we need a processor agreement for [X]", greenfield | workflows/draft.md |
REDLINE |
Counterparty has sent a DPA, user wants tracked-changes / counter-proposals | workflows/redline.md |
JOINT_CONTROLLER |
"Art. 26", "joint controller", "JCA", or roles screen reveals JC not processor relationship | workflows/joint-controller.md |
What ships with it
25 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.
- evals/evals.json 17 KB
- examples/dpa-art28-worked-example.md 3.5 KB
- LICENSE 11 KB
- README.md 3.7 KB
- references/2021-915-commission-text-de.md 18 KB
- references/2021-915-commission-text-en.md 16 KB
- references/art26-joint-controller.md 10 KB
- references/art28-3-checklist.md 16 KB
- references/common-defects.md 23 KB
- references/negotiation-fallbacks.md 14 KB
- references/sccs-module-guide.md 10 KB
- references/tier-selection.md 7.1 KB
- templates/dpa-commercial-de.md 36 KB
- templates/dpa-commercial-en.md 30 KB
- templates/dpa-hybrid-de.md 20 KB
- templates/dpa-hybrid-en.md 18 KB
- templates/dpa-strict-de.md 18 KB
- templates/dpa-strict-en.md 17 KB
- templates/jca-de.md 27 KB
- templates/jca-en.md 23 KB
- workflows/draft.md 11 KB
- workflows/joint-controller.md 12 KB
- workflows/redline.md 8.1 KB
- workflows/review-negotiation.md 11 KB
- workflows/review-quick.md 5.8 KB
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 · 194 lines · 197 tokens per session scan A 69f7a8a04cad
dpa-art28 is a skill published in the GitHub repository LegalQuants/lq-skills (54 stars, last pushed 2mo ago), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 197 tokens to every session and 4,202 once invoked, about $0.0010 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…