Getting it into your agent
It runs from inside its repository, so the clone comes first — what it calls does not travel with the file alone.
git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/sun2443/designer-skillsnpx agentmods add skills/sun2443/designer-skills/review-contractWrote 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/sun2443/designer-skills/review-contract)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/sun2443/designer-skills/review-contract"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/sun2443/designer-skills/review-contract/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/sun2443/designer-skills/review-contract"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/sun2443/designer-skills/review-contract.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 | $0.00059 | $0.03457 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00024 | $0.01383 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00012 | $0.00691 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00346 |
Grade A, and why
review-contract 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 13d 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 review-contract — 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 — 359 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
/review-contract -- Contract Review Against Playbook
If you see unfamiliar placeholders or need to check which tools are connected, see CONNECTORS.md.
Review a contract against your organization's negotiation playbook. Analyze each clause, flag deviations, generate redline suggestions, and provide business impact analysis.
Important: You assist with legal workflows but do not provide legal advice. All analysis should be reviewed by qualified legal professionals before being relied upon.
Invocation
/review-contract <contract file or URL>
Review the contract: @$1
Workflow
Step 1: Accept the Contract
Accept the contract in any of these formats:
- File upload: PDF, DOCX, or other document format
- URL: Link to a contract in your CLM, cloud storage (e.g., Box, Egnyte, SharePoint), or other document system
- Pasted text: Contract text pasted directly into the conversation
If no contract is provided, prompt the user to supply one.
Step 2: Gather Context
Ask the user for context before beginning the review:
- Which side are you on? (vendor/supplier, customer/buyer, licensor, licensee, partner -- or other)
- Deadline: When does this need to be finalized? (Affects prioritization of issues)
- Focus areas: Any specific concerns? (e.g., "data protection is critical", "we need flexibility on term", "IP ownership is the key issue")
- Deal context: Any relevant business context? (e.g., deal size, strategic importance, existing relationship)
If the user provides partial context, proceed with what you have and note assumptions.
Step 3: Load the Playbook
Look for the organization's contract review playbook in local settings (e.g., legal.local.md or similar configuration files).
The playbook should define:
- Standard positions: The organization's preferred terms for each major clause type
- Acceptable ranges: Terms that can be agreed to without escalation
- Escalation triggers: Terms that require senior counsel review or outside counsel involvement
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.
- 13d ago First seen · 359 lines · 59 tokens per session scan A 3a6413475f51
review-contract is a skill published in the GitHub repository sun2443/designer-skills (0 stars, last pushed 6mo ago), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 59 tokens to every session and 3,457 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 review-contract, differing in 0 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other skills, from other repositories
fto-triage
Freedom-to-operate triage — a structured first look at potentially blocking patents, not an FTO opinion. Use when a product, process, or feature is being evaluated for blocking patents, when asked whether anything stops a launch, or to build a claim-chart first pass against the most plausible patents before patent…
legal-hold
Issue, refresh, release, or report on legal holds — drafts the hold notice as .docx, updates legalhold fields in log.yaml, and calendars the next refresh. Use when the user says "issue a hold", "refresh hold", "release hold", or asks for a portfolio-wide hold status report.
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.
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.
regulatory-research-fallback
Fallback workflow for regulatory research when web extraction tools fail on government PDFs.
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.