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 proposition-checkinggit 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/proposition-checking)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/legalquants/lq-skills/proposition-checking"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/legalquants/lq-skills/proposition-checking/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/proposition-checking"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/legalquants/lq-skills/proposition-checking.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 | $0.00055 | $0.01334 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00022 | $0.00534 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00011 | $0.00267 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00133 |
Grade A, and why
proposition-checking 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 — 144 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
proposition-checking
When to Use
- A brief, skeleton argument, motion, memo, advice note, or witness statement makes propositions tied to citations.
- The user wants to know whether cited cases, statutes, exhibits, or witness evidence actually support the statement made.
- A citation exists, but the concern is misuse rather than fabrication.
- The user asks whether a quotation, paraphrase, or record reference is accurate.
This skill checks support. It does not predict who wins and does not replace legal judgment.
Audience and Work Shape
Audience: litigators, legal researchers, trainees, and paralegals checking draft arguments or evidence summaries for lawyer review.
Work shape: pattern-matched source checking with accretive judgment. The skill maps propositions to sources and grades support; it does not make the legal argument for the user.
Legal Failure Modes
- Legal support, not legal advice: support classification is a verification aid, not a merits opinion.
- Privilege/confidentiality: drafts, exhibits, transcripts, and advice notes may be privileged or confidential; use approved environments and mark source limitations.
- Accountability: the responsible lawyer decides whether to keep, narrow, replace, or abandon the proposition.
Access Modes
This skill works in three modes:
- Live source mode - use browser, web search, MCP, API, or other configured access to retrieve authorities, statutes, rules, or public records.
- User-supplied source mode - use uploaded or pasted judgments, statutes, exhibits, pleadings, transcripts, correspondence, witness statements, or record bundles.
- No-source mode - extract propositions and citations, then prepare a verification queue. Do not classify support as
supported,unsupported, orcontradicted.
If the source cannot be retrieved or supplied, mark the proposition unverified-source-unavailable. Do not assess source support from model memory.
How It Works
1. Separate propositions from citations
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.
- 1mo ago First seen · 144 lines · 55 tokens per session scan A b50864876673
proposition-checking is a skill published in the GitHub repository LegalQuants/lq-skills (64 stars, last pushed 4mo ago), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 55 tokens to every session and 1,334 once invoked, about $0.0002 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
mqc-chronicle-master
A document-preparation workflow that turns a collection of legal materials into a dated case timeline. It copies facts from the source, records dates, parties, page references, and conflicts, and produces Word, Excel, and a short visual version.
mqc-trial-confrontation-master
A legal case-preparation workflow that turns case materials into a map of the parties' claims, the court's checks, and the opposing arguments. It also produces a structured analysis table, with legal and evidence confidence labels and sources for its reasoning.
legaltech-expert
Expert in legal technology: contract lifecycle management, e-discovery, AI-assisted legal research, case and matter management, document automation, and compliance tooling. Use when the user mentions legal case or matter management, e-discovery and legal holds, CLM or contract review and obligation tracking, legal…
cite-specific-section-numbers
Anchor document analysis to exact sections or pages so readers can verify the supporting passage.
citevahti-claims
Use before publishing ANY public CiteVahti artifact — site copy, README, LinkedIn post, release notes, docs, conference slide, screenshot caption — to audit it against the must-not-claim list and the evidence-tier language rules. Also use when drafting such copy, or when asked "can we say this about CiteVahti?".…
Brief Section Drafter
Use when drafting a single section of a litigation brief — such as a statement of facts, argument section, standard of review, or conclusion — that is cited to the record, consistent with the case theory, and fully flagged for attorney verification before filing.