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 license-complygit 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/license-comply)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/legalquants/lq-skills/license-comply"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/legalquants/lq-skills/license-comply/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/license-comply"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/legalquants/lq-skills/license-comply.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 | $0.00028 | $0.01675 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00014 | $0.00838 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00006 | $0.00335 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00168 |
Grade A, and why
license-comply 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 — 134 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
license-comply
When to Use
- Auditing a Python project's dependency license compliance
- Generating license risk reports for legal/engineering review
- CI/CD integration for automated license checks
- Reviewing third-party library license terms before adoption
- Creating software bill of materials (SBOM) for compliance
Audience and Work Shape
Audience: non-lawyer engineers running a CI-gated dependency scan, and the in-house counsel / open-source review function those engineers escalate to. Not intended as a stand-alone clearance tool for engineering teams without a counsel-in-the-loop on flagged findings.
Work shape: Pattern-Matched Review for license detection (license string -> SPDX -> policy band). The "AI executive summary" and "plain-English explanations" features are advisory framing, not judgment work, and must not be relied on as legal advice or as a substitute for counsel review.
Scope and Legal Use
This skill provides legal support, not legal advice. A "low risk" classification means "the detected SPDX identifier is on the configured allow-list" — it does not mean "this dependency is safe to ship in your product," "this license is compatible with the rest of your stack," or "your use of this code is compliant."
Three legal failure modes this skill explicitly addresses:
- Legal advice vs. legal support. The report is advisory. Risk bands, remediation text, plain-English explanations, and the optional AI executive summary are detection output, not legal conclusions. They do not constitute legal advice and must not be circulated to leadership as a clearance.
- Privilege implications. CI-generated reports are discoverable artefacts by default. If counsel wants the manual-review layer to sit inside privilege, counsel must mark up the report under privilege themselves; running the CLI in CI does not create work product. Treat raw CI artefacts as non-privileged.
- Accountability gap. The tool is CI-gated and aimed at non-lawyer engineers. Without an explicit gate, an engineer can merge against a license violation without legal review — the
--fail-on=highflag exits non-zero but can be silently bypassed in CI configuration, and the AI executive summary lets leadership consume a license posture with no counsel in the loop. Review required by qualified open-source / IP counsel before merging changes flagged Medium or High. The CI gate is not a substitute for that review.
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 · 134 lines · 28 tokens per session scan A f768da6a95a8
license-comply is a skill published in the GitHub repository LegalQuants/lq-skills (54 stars, last pushed 2mo ago), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 28 tokens to every session and 1,675 once invoked, about $0.0001 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
app-store-preflight-compliance
Pre-submission compliance scanner workflow for Apple App Store apps. Use when reviewing iOS, macOS, tvOS, watchOS, or visionOS projects (Swift, Objective-C, React Native, Expo) for App Store rejection risks, submission readiness, privacy compliance, or guideline violations.
compliance
Use when scoping which regulatory frameworks bind a business — SOC 2, ISO 27001, HIPAA, PCI DSS, EU AI Act, DORA, NIS2 — building a control register with owners and evidence, or standing up the cadence that keeps it audit-ready. NOT drafting privacy-policy/ROPA/DPA or ToS text (that is gdpr-privacy, terms-conditions)…
check
A Russian-language checking workflow for websites that looks for possible issues under Russian personal-data, advertising, and consumer-protection laws. It checks forms, privacy policies, cookies, trackers, advertising identifiers, and product displays.
scan-url
A live-website checker that opens a URL in Chromium and examines the page structure and cookies for items such as consent, privacy-policy details, advertising identifiers, storefront information, and foreign trackers.
generate-policy
A draft generator for a personal-data processing policy, using the required operator name and any supplied company details. It produces a template, not a legal document.
get-law
A law-text lookup tool for a selected collection on pravo.gov.ru, including Russia's personal-data law, advertising law, or consumer-protection law. It can return a requested article's text.