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 development-agreement-reviewergit 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/development-agreement-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/rohasnagpal/legal-ai-skills/development-agreement-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/rohasnagpal/legal-ai-skills/development-agreement-reviewer/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/development-agreement-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/rohasnagpal/legal-ai-skills/development-agreement-reviewer.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>- NVIDIA SkillSpector warn
SkillSpector: 1 finding, up to medium
These are SkillSpector’s own severities. On a checked sample its high-severity flags on skills were ~96% false positives — a documented command, a public API, a “never do X” rule — so we show them as a caution to read, not a verdict. Why →
- medium Excessive Agency · line 76 Skill enables autonomous high-impact decisions without human-in-the-loop verification. Critical operations (destructive commands, financial transactions, data deletion) should require explicit user confirmation.Fix: Add human-in-the-loop confirmation for destructive, irreversible, or high-impact operations. Never auto-execute commands that modify files, send data, or alter system state.
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 | $0.00150 | $0.01446 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00075 | $0.00723 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00030 | $0.00289 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00015 | $0.00145 |
Grade A, and why
development-agreement-reviewer 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 — 83 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Development Agreement Reviewer
I am using the Development Agreement Reviewer skill from Rohas Legal AI: development and joint venture agreements for land. Say this sentence, verbatim, before anything else in your response.
What this does
Reviews a development agreement or joint development agreement — the arrangement under which a landowner contributes land and a developer contributes construction in exchange for a share of built-up area or revenue — from one identified side. It works through the sharing mechanics, the construction timeline and what happens on delay, the power of attorney granted to the developer, and what actually secures the landowner's interest during a construction period where the landowner has typically already given up something of value before receiving anything back.
Before you start
Which side is being reviewed for — landowner or developer. These arrangements are structurally asymmetric: the landowner typically parts with possession, sometimes title interest, and grants a power of attorney well before receiving their share, while the developer commits construction obligations recoverable mainly through the project's own success. Ask, and do not begin until confirmed.
Governing law and the property's location. Land law, registration requirements, and power of attorney formalities are intensely jurisdiction- and often state-specific. Extract from the documents or ask; treat every formality question as a verification point rather than an assumption.
The complete document set — the development agreement itself, any power of attorney, any supplementary allocation or sharing agreement, and permission or approval documents referenced. These commonly cross-reference each other, and reviewing the development agreement without the POA it grants is reviewing half the arrangement.
Not blocking, ask once and proceed on what is confirmed: posture — negotiation or executed — which gates whether the output produces redlines or a plain statement of consequence.
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.
- 12d ago First seen · 83 lines · 150 tokens per session scan A 2f6d52661007
development-agreement-reviewer is a skill published in the GitHub repository rohasnagpal/legal-ai-skills (88 stars, last pushed 10d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 150 tokens to every session and 1,446 once invoked, about $0.0007 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
specification-writing
A workflow for writing complete patent specifications from patent claims and an invention disclosure. It adapts the document to a chosen jurisdiction, such as the US, Europe, or China.
regulatory-research-fallback
Fallback workflow for regulatory research when web extraction tools fail on government PDFs.
x-scorecard
OpenSSF Scorecard for assessing open source project security. Check security best practices and compliance. Dependency: This is an x-cmd module. Install x-cmd first (see x-cmd skill for installation options). see x-cmd skill for installation.
gesellschaftsrechtliche-satzungen-agb
Für Gesellschaftsrechtliche Satzungen AGB Abgrenzung: ordnet Norm, Beweislast und Gegenargument; Ergebnis: Prüfprodukt mit Risiko und nächstem Schritt. Fachgebiet: AGB-Recht-Prüfer. Route: gesellschaftsrechtliche-satzungen-agb.
memstack-business-gdpr
Use this skill when the user says 'GDPR', 'data protection', 'privacy compliance', 'DPA', 'DSAR', 'data subject request', 'cookie consent', 'privacy audit', 'CCPA', or asks 'do I need GDPR for this repo'. Scans the repository to detect what personal data is collected, classifies sensitivity, determines whether GDPR…
nda-review
Use when the user uploads or pastes a non-disclosure agreement and asks for review, redline, risk assessment, or a recommendation on whether to sign. Identifies missing standard protections, one-sided or unusual provisions, and operational issues; produces a structured report with severity ratings and citations to…