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 taivop/marketplace --skill supreme-court-judgmentsgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/taivop/marketplaceWrote 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/taivop/marketplace/supreme-court-judgments)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/taivop/marketplace/supreme-court-judgments"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/taivop/marketplace/supreme-court-judgments/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/taivop/marketplace/supreme-court-judgments"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/taivop/marketplace/supreme-court-judgments.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 | $0.00033 | $0.00503 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00016 | $0.00251 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00007 | $0.00101 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00050 |
Grade A, and why
supreme-court-judgments 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 8d 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.
What it actually says
Supreme Court Judgments
Access
- Supreme Court page:
https://www.riigikohus.ee/et/lahendid - Search endpoint embedded by that page:
GET https://rikos.rik.ee/ - Public HTML; no login or browser automation is required.
Retrieve
Send search fields as query parameters. The short parameter names accepted by the public form include:
asjaNr: case numberasjaLiigidIds: case type classifier, repeat for multiple valuessyyteoLiigidIds: offence type classifierotsuseKpalgus,otsuseKpLopp: decision date rangeannotatsioon: annotation texttekst: full-text termpageSize: 1-100sortVaartus:LahendiKuulutamiseAegorMenetlus.MenetluseNRsortAsc:trueorfalse
For example, ?tekst=pohiseadus&pageSize=25 returns matching rows. Follow /LahendiOtsingEriVaade?asjaNr=... for the decision view. Add genereeriPdf=True to the same search query for the site's result-list PDF.
Return
- Preserve case number, decision date/type, title or annotation, detail URL, search parameters, result count, and retrieval time.
- Link the decision text or file itself when available; do not summarize a holding from the result-list snippet alone.
Limits
- This search is Supreme Court-specific. Use
court-proceedings-datafor all court levels and public hearing listings. - Search results are HTML, not JSON. Parse the result table and resolve relative links against
https://rikos.rik.ee/. - Some judgments are redacted or not publicly available.
Verify
- Require a focused text query to return a positive
Tulemusedcount and rows with/LahendiOtsingEriVaade?asjaNr=links. - Confirm that the Supreme Court page still embeds
https://rikos.rik.ee/; reject unrelated files linked elsewhere on the page as judgment results.
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.
- 8d ago First seen · 45 lines · 33 tokens per session scan A 01c3b332a59b
supreme-court-judgments is a skill published in the GitHub repository taivop/marketplace (17 stars, last pushed 12d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 33 tokens to every session and 503 once invoked, about $0.0002 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 2026-09-04.
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…