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 uk-particulars-of-claim-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/uk-particulars-of-claim-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/legalquants/lq-skills/uk-particulars-of-claim-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/legalquants/lq-skills/uk-particulars-of-claim-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/uk-particulars-of-claim-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/legalquants/lq-skills/uk-particulars-of-claim-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 | $0.00072 | $0.01390 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00029 | $0.00556 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00014 | $0.00278 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00007 | $0.00139 |
Grade A, and why
uk-particulars-of-claim-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 — 137 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
uk-particulars-of-claim-review
When to Use
- A user has draft Particulars of Claim or a pre-action pleading outline.
- The draft needs checking before issue, service, amendment, or counsel review.
- The user wants gaps in pleaded facts, parties, remedies, limitation, or causes of action surfaced.
- The claim is in England and Wales civil litigation.
This skill reviews pleading sufficiency and structure. It does not certify merits, settle pleading strategy, sign statements of truth, or replace solicitor/counsel approval of the final pleading.
Audience and Work Shape
Audience: England and Wales litigation solicitors, pupils/junior counsel, trainees, and paralegals preparing or checking a pleading for solicitor/counsel review.
Work shape: pattern-matched review with accretive judgment. The skill maps pleaded facts to elements and flags drafting gaps; it does not settle legal strategy or merits.
Legal Failure Modes
- Legal support, not legal advice: the review identifies pleading gaps and verification points; it does not certify viability, merits, strategy, or limitation.
- Privilege/confidentiality: draft pleadings and advice notes are often privileged work product until filed or served. Keep review outputs internal unless a responsible lawyer approves circulation.
- Accountability: the responsible solicitor/counsel owns the final pleading, statement of truth, allegations, and relief sought.
Access Modes
This skill works in three modes:
- Live source mode - use browser, web search, MCP, API, or other configured access to retrieve public rules, protocols, authorities, filings, or source documents.
- User-supplied source mode - use draft pleadings, contracts, chronology, correspondence, witness materials, counsel notes, rules, protocols, or orders supplied by the user.
- No-source mode - review the draft's internal pleading structure and prepare a source/rule request list, but do not verify elements, limitation, or CPR compliance.
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 · 137 lines · 72 tokens per session scan A 120fdc0be9bf
uk-particulars-of-claim-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository LegalQuants/lq-skills (64 stars, last pushed 4mo ago), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 72 tokens to every session and 1,390 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
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.
Demand Letter
Use when drafting a demand letter for attorney review — running a structured intake, a pre-draft risk gate, and a draft with every legal conclusion, damages figure, and deadline flagged for attorney confirmation before sending.
Motion Opposition Drafter
Use when organizing and drafting a DRAFT opposition or response brief to a pending motion — deconstructing the movant's arguments into a point-by-point response outline, mapping the movant's cited authorities to verification placeholders, and assembling a source-cited opposition draft for attorney review before filing.
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.
cookie-consent-policy
Drafts publication-ready cookie policies, banner copy, and consent-flow language under GDPR/ePrivacy, CCPA/CPRA, and major U.S. state privacy laws. Converts a verified cookie inventory into enforceable policy sections with lawful-basis mapping, granular opt-in controls, withdrawal mechanics, and user-rights handling.…