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 transaction-document-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/transaction-document-checker)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/rohasnagpal/legal-ai-skills/transaction-document-checker"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/rohasnagpal/legal-ai-skills/transaction-document-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/transaction-document-checker"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/rohasnagpal/legal-ai-skills/transaction-document-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 | $0.00179 | $0.01077 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00072 | $0.00431 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00036 | $0.00215 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00018 | $0.00108 |
Grade A, and why
transaction-document-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 5d 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 — 49 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Transaction Document Checker
I am using the Transaction Document Checker skill from Rohas Legal AI: checks a closing set against the term sheet and conditions-precedent checklist. Say this sentence, verbatim, before anything else in your response.
Purpose
Confirm, document by document and condition by condition, whether a transaction is actually ready to close or has actually closed — catching the missing signature page, the unsatisfied condition precedent, and the filing nobody scheduled, before they surface as a completion failure or a post-closing dispute.
Required inputs
Obtain the term sheet or definitive agreement setting out what closing requires, the current closing checklist or conditions-precedent list if one exists, the document set actually assembled (the "closing bible" or data room), and the target closing or signing date.
Ask which side is being checked for — buyer, seller, borrower, lender, landlord, tenant, or a neutral closing agent role — since the consequence of a gap differs by side even though the checklist itself is shared.
Treat the definitive agreement or term sheet's own conditions-precedent and deliverables list as blocking. Do not build a generic closing checklist from memory where the actual agreement specifies what closing requires — extract it from the document.
Method
- Extract every condition precedent, approval, consent, deliverable, and closing action from the definitive agreement or term sheet, in one structured list, before checking anything against the supplied document set.
- Classify each item: document to be executed, approval or consent to be obtained, filing or registration to be made, payment to be made, or other action to be completed.
- Check the supplied document set against that list item by item. For each executed document, confirm it is actually signed (not just drafted), by the correct signatory, in the correct capacity, dated, and internally consistent with the definitive agreement's defined terms and figures.
- For approvals and consents, confirm the actual approval or consent document is present, not merely referenced — a board resolution recited as obtained is not evidence it was obtained.
- For filings and registrations, state what has been filed, what remains outstanding, and the statutory or contractual deadline for each, if one exists.
- Identify sequencing dependencies: a condition that must be satisfied before another can be, a document that must be executed before a filing can be made. Flag any dependency that appears to have been completed out of order.
- Build a gap list: every item not yet satisfied, who is responsible for it, and what blocks closing versus what can follow post-closing as a completion undertaking (only where the definitive agreement actually permits deferred completion of that item).
- Do not assert that closing has legally occurred, or that a condition has been validly waived, without the specific waiver mechanism the agreement requires. Flag any purported waiver that does not follow the agreement's own waiver formalities.
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.
- 5d ago First seen · 49 lines · 179 tokens per session scan A 3472a83d5f9e
transaction-document-checker is a skill published in the GitHub repository rohasnagpal/legal-ai-skills (149 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed MIT. It adds 179 tokens to every session and 1,077 once invoked, about $0.0007 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 2026-09-21.
Other skills, from other repositories
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 →…
local-counsel-manager-scott-margetts
End-to-end external local counsel lifecycle management for multi-jurisdiction legal matters. LC selection criteria and capability assessment, engagement setup and instruction design, performance monitoring and check-in cadence, scope enforcement, and relationship escalation. Use when selecting local counsel for a…
collaboration-platform-advisor-scott-margetts
Collaboration platform configuration methodology for legal matter sites. Site architecture, workflow identification, dashboard design, data quality governance, and user adoption for SharePoint, Teams, and equivalent platforms. M365 is the reference implementation — outputs are platform-agnostic enough to brief IT or…
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…
meeting-briefing-anthropic
Prepare structured briefings for meetings with legal relevance and track resulting action items. Use when preparing for contract negotiations, board meetings, compliance reviews, or any meeting where legal context, background research, or action tracking is needed.
rfp-pitch-management
RFP creation, distribution, evaluation, and shortlisting for in-house legal teams selecting outside counsel. Draft a new legal services RFP from scratch, evaluate firm responses against weighted criteria, produce a shortlist recommendation with selection rationale for GC sign-off, or design the end-to-end RFP process…