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 uk-agents/uk-legal-plugins --skill demand-intakegit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/uk-agents/uk-legal-pluginsWrote 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/uk-agents/uk-legal-plugins/demand-intake)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/uk-agents/uk-legal-plugins/demand-intake"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/uk-agents/uk-legal-plugins/demand-intake/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/uk-agents/uk-legal-plugins/demand-intake"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/uk-agents/uk-legal-plugins/demand-intake.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 | $0.00090 | $0.03060 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00045 | $0.01530 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00018 | $0.00612 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00009 | $0.00306 |
Grade A, and why
demand-intake 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 7d 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 — 274 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
/demand-intake
- Load
~/.claude/plugins/config/uk-legal-plugins/litigation-legal-uk/CLAUDE.md→ Letter Before Action practice, landscape, risk calibration. - Follow the workflow and reference below.
- Run the adaptive intake (core 8 always; strategic block if material or
--full). - Generate slug from title + counterparty + year-month.
- Write
~/.claude/plugins/config/uk-legal-plugins/litigation-legal-uk/demand-letters/[slug]/intake.md. - Confirm with user: "Intake saved. Run
/litigation-legal-uk:demand-draft [slug]when ready."
Demand Intake
Purpose
The drafting is downstream. The value is in the pre-writing — forcing the questions a careless letter skips. Leverage, BATNA, downside tolerance, privilege filters, the actual audience. A Letter Before Action sent without thinking about those is worse than no letter.
Load context
~/.claude/plugins/config/uk-legal-plugins/litigation-legal-uk/CLAUDE.md→ Letter Before Action / Letter of Claim practice (insurance-tender timing, materiality threshold for matter creation, any seed-doc templates), landscape (counterparty type, repeat-adversary patterns), risk calibration (to pre-estimate materiality), house style. Tone, compliance period, marking, and signer are NOT practice-level defaults — they are set per matter in the## Posture for this matterstep below.
Flags
--full→ run the complete intake regardless of materiality heuristics (for counsel who wants thorough every time)
The intake
Posture for this matter (ask FIRST, before the core)
Posture for this matter. Letter Before Action tone and terms are case-by-case, not a practice default. Ask:
- Tone: measured / assertive / aggressive? (depends on the relationship, the amount, and whether proceedings are likely)
- Response window: what's reasonable given the claim? (14 days is common for payment demands; 30 days for cure; the applicable CPR pre-action protocol may set a specific period — check first)
- Marking: does this need a "without prejudice" or "without prejudice save as to costs" marking? (settlement communications do; assertions of claim often don't; ask if unsure)
- Signer: you, the client, the GC, instructed solicitors/counsel? Don't assume. Read the prior correspondence in the matter file if there is any — it establishes the register. Check whether a specific CPR pre-action protocol applies to the claim type before settling on tone and timeline.
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.
- 7d ago First seen · 274 lines · 90 tokens per session scan A bcbfc7a70ff4
demand-intake is a skill published in the GitHub repository uk-agents/uk-legal-plugins (9 stars, last pushed 3mo ago), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 90 tokens to every session and 3,060 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
performance-management
Runs performance systems that change behavior — expectations, feedback, review cycles, calibration, and handling underperformance. Use this to design or fix a review process, run calibration, write or coach on feedback, address sustained underperformance, or work out why reviews consume weeks and change nothing.
specify-meta
Scaffold, status-check, and manage specification directories. Use when creating a new spec, reading spec status, transitioning between phases, or logging decisions on a spec in .start/specs/.
feature-prioritization
RICE, MoSCoW, Kano, and value-effort prioritization frameworks with scoring methodologies and decision documentation. Use when prioritizing features, evaluating competing initiatives, creating roadmaps, or making build vs defer decisions.
brand-safety-compliance
Scans outbound copy or creator-submitted content for 6 compliance red lines — medical/efficacy, exaggeration/absolute, beauty-permanence, financial/income, fake-scarcity, fake-rapport — and returns a block/warn verdict with fix suggestions. Use when the user asks to check, scan, review, or vet copy before sending, or…
litigation-workflow
Civil litigation workflow expertise — case management, deposition prep, evidence chain, and Federal Rules of Evidence.
gh-create-issue
Use when filing a GitHub issue for a bug, feature, audit, review finding, or investigated piece of work.