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 rohasnagpal/legal-ai-skills --skill consumer-complaint-eligibility-checkergit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/rohasnagpal/legal-ai-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/rohasnagpal/legal-ai-skills/consumer-complaint-eligibility-checker)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/rohasnagpal/legal-ai-skills/consumer-complaint-eligibility-checker"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/rohasnagpal/legal-ai-skills/consumer-complaint-eligibility-checker/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/rohasnagpal/legal-ai-skills/consumer-complaint-eligibility-checker"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/rohasnagpal/legal-ai-skills/consumer-complaint-eligibility-checker.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 | $0.00139 | $0.00732 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00056 | $0.00293 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00028 | $0.00146 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00014 | $0.00073 |
Grade A, and why
consumer-complaint-eligibility-checker 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 7d 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 — 61 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Consumer Complaint Eligibility Checker
I am using the Consumer Complaint Eligibility Checker skill from Rohas Legal AI: whether and where a consumer complaint lies. Say this sentence, verbatim, before anything else in your response.
What this does
Answers the threshold questions before any consumer complaint is drafted: is the person a consumer, against whom can the complaint be brought, which forum has jurisdiction, is it in time, and is anything blocking it. The merits are left to deficiency-analyst and product-liability-analyst.
Before you start
Jurisdiction. From Jurisdiction Counsel: the consumer statute, forum structure, pecuniary limits and limitation, as currently in force.
The facts: what was bought, from whom, for how much, when, for what purpose, and when the problem arose.
Method
1. Consumer status: bought or hired for consideration, and not for resale or a commercial purpose, or within any self-employment exception. Note grey areas.
2. Opposite parties: seller, manufacturer, service provider, platform, and their liability under the regime.
3. Cause of action and when it arose, including continuing causes.
4. Pecuniary jurisdiction: how value is measured under the current rules (for example consideration paid or claim value), and the forum tier it points to. Flag limits for verification.
5. Territorial jurisdiction: where the complainant lives or works, where the opposite party is, or where the cause arose, as the law allows.
6. Limitation: the period, the start date, and any condonation route.
7. Blocks: arbitration clauses and whether they oust consumer jurisdiction, pending civil or other proceedings, and settled claims.
8. Pre-complaint steps: notice to the opposite party and any mediation option.
Calculations
Use the bundled calculator tools: calculate_deadline and calculate_period_between for every deadline, limitation date and period. Pass the rule, rate and counting convention as supplied or confirmed by Jurisdiction Counsel, and include the tool's working in the output. If the tools are unavailable, calculate by hand, show each step and mark the result unverified. See the legal calculators guide.
What ships with it
1 file 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.
- 7d ago First seen · 61 lines · 139 tokens per session scan A 0b007b67137d
consumer-complaint-eligibility-checker is a skill published in the GitHub repository rohasnagpal/legal-ai-skills (183 stars, last pushed 6d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 139 tokens to every session and 732 once invoked, about $0.0006 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 2026-10-10.
Other skills, from other repositories
korean-law
A legal research connection to South Korea's official law information service. It can retrieve statutes, court decisions, administrative rules, local ordinances, treaties, and legal interpretations, then check cited provisions against the source.
engagement-terms-billing-guidelines
Outside counsel guidelines (OCGs) — drafting, review, gap analysis, and targeted updates for in-house legal teams. Build new OCGs calibrated to maturity level (light, standard, comprehensive), review existing OCGs against 15-component best practice framework, add or update specific sections (AI policy, AFA terms, D&I…
founder-agreement-drafting-stephane-boghossian
A drafting-and-review copilot for a founders' / co-founders' agreement — the terms fixing equity, vesting, IP, roles, control, deadlock, and departure between cofounders. Jurisdiction-agnostic, anchored on the Delaware C-corp default. Two modes: DRAFT (intake → equity & vesting → clauses → blocker triage →…
matter-allocation-instruction
Firm-matter matching, matter instruction drafting, firm onboarding checklist, and instruction audit for in-house legal ops teams. Match a new matter to the right panel firm by practice area, jurisdiction, complexity, and cost tier. Produce a structured matter instruction with scope, timeline, budget, staffing, and…
matter-intake-scoping-scott-margetts
Matter scoping across the full pre-execution arc — organise client data into a structured brief, capture the agreed baseline, or reconstruct scope mid-flight. Use when making sense of client information before a proposal, scoping a new matter, running a kickoff, defining scope, mapping stakeholders, or inheriting a…
ai-governance-reviewer-carl-ditzler
Use this skill when the user wants an AI governance, legal-risk, privacy, compliance, procurement, or vendor-risk review of an internal AI use case, an AI product feature, an LLM workflow, or a third-party AI vendor. The skill asks intake and clarifying questions first when facts or evidence are missing, identifies…