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 ThomasMoreAI/legal-skills-open --skill 02-lyronleegit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/ThomasMoreAI/legal-skills-openWrote 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/thomasmoreai/legal-skills-open/02-lyronlee)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/thomasmoreai/legal-skills-open/02-lyronlee"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/thomasmoreai/legal-skills-open/02-lyronlee/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/thomasmoreai/legal-skills-open/02-lyronlee"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/thomasmoreai/legal-skills-open/02-lyronlee.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>- NVIDIA SkillSpector pass
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 | $0.00105 | $0.03784 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00053 | $0.01892 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00021 | $0.00757 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00011 | $0.00378 |
Grade A, and why
02-lyronlee 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 — 322 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
02 材料制备：把上诉策略转化为法院文书
核心理念：阶段一想清楚，阶段二写清楚。本阶段不创造新的事实分析，而是把阶段一的结论转化为格式规范、可直接提交二审法院的法律文书。二审文书的核心是"原审哪里错了"，不是"事实本来怎样"。
前置依赖
- 阶段一已完成，或用户直接跳过阶段一（需读取一审判决书和策略方案）
01-上一阶段产出/中已放入阶段一产出（如阶段一已完成）- 如为被上诉人，
02-对方来文/中已放入对方上诉状
输入读取
上诉人模式输入
01-上一阶段产出/01-判决书分析意见.md01-上一阶段产出/02-上诉策略方案书.md- 一审判决书（从一审卷宗中读取）
- 一审起诉状（了解一审主张）
02-上诉新证据/中的新材料（如有）
被上诉人模式输入
02-对方来文/中的对方上诉状- 一审判决书
- 一审答辩状（了解一审抗辩）
- 一审证据目录
01-上一阶段产出/中的策略材料（如有）
Step 0：期限提取与跟踪
读取全部法院来文（04-法院来文/），提取并跟踪以下期限：
| 期限来源 | 期限事项 | 法定基准 | 优先级 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 应诉通知书 | 答辩期 | 15日 | 法院指定 > 法定 |
| 举证通知书 | 举证期限 | 法院指定（通常 ≥30日） | 法院指定 > 法定 |
| 传票 | 开庭日期 | 法院指定 | 法院指定 |
| 缴费通知书 | 上诉费预缴 | 上诉期内或法院指定期限 | 法院指定 > 法定 |
| 判决书 | 上诉期 | 判决15日 / 裁定10日 | 法院指定 > 法定 |
规则：
- 如法院来文载明特定期限，以法院指定为准
- 如法院未指定或指定不明，适用法定期限
- 将提取的期限写入《关键期限跟踪表.md》，附于本阶段全部产出文件
- 关键期限到达前3日提醒用户
Step 1：角色确认 + 已有上诉状检测
1.1 角色确认
确认用户角色，决定生成上诉状还是二审答辩状：
| 角色 | 定义 | 生成文书 |
|---|---|---|
| 上诉人 | 不服一审判决，提起上诉 | 《上诉状》（视检测结果决定是否生成） |
| 被上诉人 | 一审胜诉/部分胜诉，对方提起上诉 | 《二审答辩状》 |
角色判定规则（调用 00-通用基础设施/角色判定规则.md 第二章）：
- 如策略方案书明确角色，按策略方案书执行
- 如用户直接启动本阶段，询问确认
- 如
02-对方来文/中有对方上诉状但用户未明确角色，默认被上诉人模式
1.2 已有上诉状检测（★二审特有）
上诉期限很短（判决书15日/裁定书10日），上诉状通常在一审收尾阶段即已完成。 在决定生成上诉状前，必须先检测用户是否已有上诉状：
检测路径：
- 扫描
01-上一阶段产出/（即../01-战略分析/04-阶段产出/）中的文件 - 扫描
01-一审卷宗材料/及子目录 - 扫描项目根目录及常见输出目录（如
04-阶段产出/、06-阶段产出/） - 扫描
02-对方来文/（检测对方是否已上诉）
检测结果处理：
| 检测情形 | 系统行为 |
|---|---|
| 检测到用户已有上诉状 | 询问用户："检测到您已在一审阶段完成上诉状（文件路径：XXX），是否需要：①沿用现有上诉状；②修改现有上诉状；③重新起草？" 如选择①或②，跳过 Step 2.1（起草上诉状），直接进入 Step 2.2（新证据目录）及后续步骤 |
| 未检测到用户上诉状，但在上诉期内 | 询问用户："未检测到已有上诉状，您是否需要在二审阶段生成上诉状？" 用户确认需要时，才进入 Step 2.1 生成上诉状 |
| 未检测到用户上诉状，且上诉期已届满 | 提示用户上诉权已丧失，建议转入 03-再审程序/；如用户仍坚持，仅生成上诉状供参考（需明确告知逾期风险） |
| 检测到对方上诉状（被上诉人模式） | 直接进入被上诉人工作流（Step 3），无需生成上诉状 |
⚠️ 核心原则：本阶段默认不自动生成上诉状。仅在以下情形才生成：
- 用户明确要求生成上诉状；
- 未检测到已有上诉状，且用户确认需要生成；
- 检测到已有上诉状，但用户选择"重新起草"。
避免在一审已完成上诉状的情况下重复劳动。
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 · 322 lines · 105 tokens per session scan A 2cfc1440e1e1
02-lyronlee is a skill published in the GitHub repository ThomasMoreAI/legal-skills-open (72 stars, last pushed 2mo ago), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 105 tokens to every session and 3,784 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
pia-generator
Generate structured privacy impact assessments so Claude can organize project privacy risks, controls, and decision points into a review-ready report.
audit-scope-checklist
Generate a scoped IT audit program with controls mapped to roles and compliance frameworks. Use this skill for audit planning, control checklist generation, and auditprogram.json creation.
compliance-checker
Compare system configuration evidence against common control frameworks and produce a concise compliance assessment with gaps and remediation priorities.
compliance-controls-playbook
Guide Claude through a structured compliance audit workflow covering framework selection, evidence planning, control testing, exception handling, and reporting.
evidence-tracker
Manage audit evidence requests, collection progress, and status reporting so Claude can keep audits organized and identify overdue or blocked evidence items.
consent-checker
Review privacy policy or notice text against common privacy frameworks so Claude can explain coverage gaps, strengths, and compliance priorities.