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 nda-reviewgit 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/nda-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/legalquants/lq-skills/nda-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/legalquants/lq-skills/nda-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/legalquants/lq-skills/nda-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/legalquants/lq-skills/nda-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 | $0.00041 | $0.02877 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00020 | $0.01438 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00008 | $0.00575 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00288 |
Grade A, and why
nda-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 — 180 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
NDA Review Playbook (Commercial, Jurisdiction-Agnostic)
Version 1.0 — December 2025
This skill is a structured review playbook. It is not legal advice. When the NDA is high-risk, high-value, cross-border, or otherwise sensitive, escalate to qualified counsel.
DRAFT — qualified counsel review required before signing. Reviewer of record: __________________________ (named lawyer, required before send) Every output produced by this skill MUST carry this header verbatim and MUST leave the reviewer-of-record line in place until a named qualified lawyer has signed off. Do not send any redline, issue log, or summary to a counterparty until this line is filled.
Overview
| What this skill does | What it does not do |
|---|---|
| Reviews an NDA and outputs issues, risks, and suggested redlines | Provide jurisdiction-specific legal conclusions |
| Supports Recipient or Discloser perspectives (user-chosen) | Guarantee enforceability |
| Produces an executive summary + clause-by-clause markup guidance | Replace counsel for complex deals |
Scope: supports one-way (unilateral) commercial NDAs only. If mutual, this playbook is out of scope.
Variation callouts appear throughout: M&A/Due diligence, Employment/contractor, Investor/VC
Inputs to Collect (Ask Before Reviewing)
A. Role and deal context (required)
- Are we reviewing as Recipient (we receive confidential info) or Discloser (we disclose confidential info)?
- Confirm the NDA is one-way (unilateral) — if mutual, stop: out of scope
- What is the purpose / permitted use?
- What are the parties (legal names) and any affiliates?
- What information types are expected (tech, pricing, customer data, product roadmap, source code)?
- Desired timeline: when do we need to sign?
B. Practical constraints (recommended)
- Do we need to share with affiliates, advisors, contractors, auditors, or potential acquirers?
- Will we export data across borders or store in cloud tools?
- Will any personal data be shared?
What ships with it
5 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.
- 12d ago First seen · 180 lines · 41 tokens per session scan A 6697c5656734
nda-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository LegalQuants/lq-skills (54 stars, last pushed 2mo ago), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 41 tokens to every session and 2,877 once invoked, about $0.0002 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
NDA Review
Use when reviewing a non-disclosure or confidentiality agreement to produce a triage rating (route, flag, or stop), a structured risk summary, and prioritized redline points for attorney review.
Document Compliance Audit
Audit a vendor agreement or contract: extract key clauses, check that required clause categories are present, flag compliance gaps and risks, and emit a structured audit summary. Use for compliance, contract review, audit, and vendor agreement requests.
Contract Drafter
Generate legal contracts from templates with variable substitution and clause management.
leiloeiro-edital-foolhardy45
Analise e auditoria de editais de leilao judicial e extrajudicial. Riscos ocultos, clausulas perigosas, debitos, ocupante e classificacao da oportunidade.
beopsuny
A Korean-law research and contract-review assistant for in-house lawyers and compliance teams. It checks current primary sources, such as official laws and court decisions, and shows how reliable each source is.
Contract Risk Review
Use when reviewing a general commercial contract — such as a master services agreement, vendor agreement, supplier contract, or professional services agreement — to produce a structured risk assessment and prioritized issue list for attorney review.