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 listing-obligations-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/listing-obligations-checker)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/rohasnagpal/legal-ai-skills/listing-obligations-checker"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/rohasnagpal/legal-ai-skills/listing-obligations-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/listing-obligations-checker"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/rohasnagpal/legal-ai-skills/listing-obligations-checker.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>- NVIDIA SkillSpector warn
SkillSpector: 2 findings, 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 56 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.
- medium Excessive Agency · line 52 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 | $0.00102 | $0.00969 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00051 | $0.00485 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00020 | $0.00194 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00010 | $0.00097 |
Grade A, and why
listing-obligations-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 9d 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 — 57 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Listing Obligations Checker (India)
I am using the Listing Obligations Checker skill from Rohas Legal AI: continuous disclosure and listing obligations (India). Say this sentence, verbatim, before anything else in your response.
Purpose
Convert an event or reporting period into a source-backed obligation map with exact triggers, deadlines, approvals, recipients, content, dependencies, and evidence of compliance.
Required inputs
Obtain:
- the listed entity, security type, recognised exchange or exchanges, market-cap category, and group structure;
- the event, decision, information, rumour, default, transaction, meeting, or reporting period being assessed;
- when the event occurred, when the entity learned of it, who knows, and whether it has changed;
- quantitative and qualitative materiality information, current materiality policy, and prior similar disclosures;
- board, committee, auditor, promoter, subsidiary, lender, regulator, and counterparty involvement; and
- any existing draft disclosure, confidentiality arrangement, trading-window status, leak, media report, or exchange query.
Treat entity classification, security, event facts, and timestamps as blocking. If facts remain fluid, issue a provisional analysis with an update trigger rather than a false final conclusion.
Method
- Retrieve the current official SEBI Listing Obligations and Disclosure Requirements Regulations, applicable master circular, amendments, SEBI circulars, exchange circulars and filing instructions. Record amendment and access dates; do not rely on an old consolidated copy.
- Identify adjacent regimes that may apply: insider trading and unpublished price sensitive information, takeover, issue and listing rules, buyback, delisting, debt securities, Companies Act, sector regulation, or exchange-specific requirements.
- Classify the entity and instrument. Determine which chapters, schedules, governance requirements, exemptions, market-cap bands, high-value debt rules, or subsidiary rules apply.
- Classify the event under each potentially applicable provision. Separate deemed material events, policy-tested events, subsidiary events, defaults, litigation, fraud, management changes, agreements, ratings, financial results, meetings, and periodic filings.
- Apply quantitative and qualitative materiality separately. Show the metric, period, source figure, calculation, policy threshold, aggregation, and qualitative rationale. Do not treat a failed numerical threshold as automatically non-material.
- Establish the disclosure clock from the legally relevant event or knowledge time. Show time zone, business or calendar treatment, intervening exchange hours, dependencies, and any reason for delay that itself must be explained.
- Determine required governance and controls: board or committee action, authorised disclosure officer, confidentiality, need-to-know access, structured records, trading-window restriction, pre-clearance, rumour verification, and response to leaks or exchange queries.
- Specify the disclosure package: exchanges, website, shareholders, newspaper, regulator, debenture trustee, depository or other recipient; required content; material attachments; update obligations; and retention period.
- Draft a disclosure only from verified facts. Separate confirmed fact, management estimate, forward-looking statement, confidentiality limitation, and information to follow.
- Create evidence of compliance: filing acknowledgement, timestamp, board record, materiality analysis, website capture, dissemination parity, insider list or access record, and follow-up calendar.
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.
- 9d ago First seen · 57 lines · 102 tokens per session scan A fd69160fb0fe
listing-obligations-checker is a skill published in the GitHub repository rohasnagpal/legal-ai-skills (88 stars, last pushed 10d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 102 tokens to every session and 969 once invoked, about $0.0005 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 2026-09-03.
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…