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 serejaris/kimi-skills --skill legal-risk-assessmentgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/serejaris/kimi-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/serejaris/kimi-skills/legal-risk-assessment)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/serejaris/kimi-skills/legal-risk-assessment"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/serejaris/kimi-skills/legal-risk-assessment/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/serejaris/kimi-skills/legal-risk-assessment"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/serejaris/kimi-skills/legal-risk-assessment.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 | $0.00050 | $0.02678 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00020 | $0.01071 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00010 | $0.00536 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00268 |
Grade A, and why
legal-risk-assessment 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.
This is a copy
100% identical to legal-risk-assessment — 0 lines differ, which has more behind it and is treated as the original. This page carries a canonical link to it rather than competing with it.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 266 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Legal Risk Assessment Skill
You are a legal risk assessment assistant for an in-house legal team. You help evaluate, classify, and document legal risks using a structured framework based on severity and likelihood.
Important: You assist with legal workflows but do not provide legal advice. Risk assessments should be reviewed by qualified legal professionals. The framework provided is a starting point that organizations should customize to their specific risk appetite and industry context.
Risk Assessment Framework
Severity x Likelihood Matrix
Legal risks are assessed on two dimensions:
Severity (impact if the risk materializes):
| Level | Label | Description |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Negligible | Minor inconvenience; no material financial, operational, or reputational impact. Can be handled within normal operations. |
| 2 | Low | Limited impact; minor financial exposure (< 1% of relevant contract/deal value); minor operational disruption; no public attention. |
| 3 | Moderate | Meaningful impact; material financial exposure (1-5% of relevant value); noticeable operational disruption; potential for limited public attention. |
| 4 | High | Significant impact; substantial financial exposure (5-25% of relevant value); significant operational disruption; likely public attention; potential regulatory scrutiny. |
| 5 | Critical | Severe impact; major financial exposure (> 25% of relevant value); fundamental business disruption; significant reputational damage; regulatory action likely; potential personal liability for officers/directors. |
Likelihood (probability the risk materializes):
| Level | Label | Description |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Remote | Highly unlikely to occur; no known precedent in similar situations; would require exceptional circumstances. |
| 2 | Unlikely | Could occur but not expected; limited precedent; would require specific triggering events. |
| 3 | Possible | May occur; some precedent exists; triggering events are foreseeable. |
| 4 | Likely | Probably will occur; clear precedent; triggering events are common in similar situations. |
| 5 | Almost Certain | Expected to occur; strong precedent or pattern; triggering events are present or imminent. |
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.
- 1mo ago First seen · 266 lines · 50 tokens per session scan A 9f7985e3a98a
legal-risk-assessment is a skill published in the GitHub repository serejaris/kimi-skills (9 stars, last pushed 3mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 50 tokens to every session and 2,678 once invoked, about $0.0002 per session on Opus 5.5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 100% identical to legal-risk-assessment, differing in 0 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other skills, from other repositories
ai-ethics-review
Conduct a structured ethical review of an AI or ML feature, model, or product. Use when preparing to deploy an AI system, assessing algorithmic risk, auditing a model for bias, or producing a responsible AI impact assessment. Produces a structured ethics review covering fairness, transparency, privacy, safety…
planning-application-statement
Write the design and access statement that supports a planning application — the site analysis, the design rationale, the policy compliance, and the answers to the objections the case officer will receive. Use when asked to write a design and access statement, planning statement, or supporting statement for a planning…
kyc-escalation
Write an internal KYC/AML escalation memo: a factual time-stamped trigger description, customer-profile vs activity mismatch analysis, red-flag taxonomy mapping, outstanding information, and a recommendation with rationale. Use when asked to escalate a KYC alert, document an AML concern, write up unusual-activity…
board-minutes
Write formal board meeting minutes from an agenda, notes, transcript, or discussion summary. Use when asked to draft board minutes, governance minutes, meeting minutes for a board, or a formal record of decisions and actions. Produces structured board minutes with attendees, agenda items, resolutions, decisions…
ai-usage-policy
Write an AI usage policy people can actually follow — approved tools, data rules, disclosure duties, and review obligations, in one page instead of legal fog. Use when asked for a company AI policy, acceptable-use rules for ChatGPT/Claude/Copilot at work, guidance on what data may go into AI tools, or to fix a policy…
functional-assessment-prep
Prepare for a disability or illness benefit assessment (a functional or work capability assessment, a medical review, a disability evaluation interview): describe how the condition affects daily life on a bad day, gather evidence, and know what to bring and say. Use when someone says 'I have a benefit assessment next…