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 zgbrenner/agentcounsel --skill citation-integrity-checkgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/zgbrenner/agentcounselWrote 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/zgbrenner/agentcounsel/citation-integrity-check)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/zgbrenner/agentcounsel/citation-integrity-check"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/zgbrenner/agentcounsel/citation-integrity-check/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/zgbrenner/agentcounsel/citation-integrity-check"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/zgbrenner/agentcounsel/citation-integrity-check.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 | $0.00043 | $0.01525 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00022 | $0.00763 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00009 | $0.00305 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00153 |
Grade A, and why
Citation Integrity Check 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 — 118 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Citation Integrity Check
Purpose
Review citations and legal authority references in draft legal work product. The skill classifies each citation by source status, flags defects and hallucination risks, and produces attorney verification items.
This is a structured citation integrity workflow. It is not automated legal citation verification. It does not guarantee that an authority exists, is current, is binding, or supports the proposition asserted. Attorney verification remains required.
Use When
- A draft contains cases, statutes, regulations, rules, agency guidance, quotations, treatises, articles, or legal-source URLs.
- A user asks whether citations look real, complete, current, binding, persuasive, or properly used.
- A research memo, rule summary, demand letter, brief section, or legal analysis includes legal authorities.
- A source-validation or red-team pass has flagged citation concerns.
- A draft may rely on model-suggested authorities that need attorney verification.
Choosing among the verification skills:
- Use this skill when the review is limited to citations and quotations.
- Use
red-team-verifierinstead for the full adversarial pass over an entire deliverable — the superset that also covers reasoning, framing, jurisdiction, and completeness. - Use
hallucination-red-teaminstead for a targeted hunt for fabricated or unsupported content in a draft. - Use
source-validationinstead for claim-by-claim classification of whether each claim in a draft is supported by the available sources.
Required Inputs
- The complete draft containing citations.
- Any cited authority text, source documents, URLs, research notes, or source list available in the matter file.
- Jurisdiction, court, agency, governing law, date of analysis, and intended use if known.
If the draft is not provided, stop and request it. If sources are not provided, classify citations but mark verification status as limited.
Do Not Use When
- The task is to perform new legal research from scratch; use a research skill.
- The draft has no citations, quotations, or legal authority references.
- The user wants a final conclusion that a citation is controlling, current, or legally sufficient.
- The user asks the model to invent missing citations or complete partial citations from memory.
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 · 118 lines · 43 tokens per session scan A f94b1992cfd5
Citation Integrity Check is a skill published in the GitHub repository zgbrenner/agentcounsel (19 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 43 tokens to every session and 1,525 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 2026-09-03.
Other skills, from other repositories
legal-research
A legal research skill for finding and analysing laws and court cases, including similar cases. It requires access to a reliable legal research database before producing a formal report.
document-fill
A document-filling assistant that uses a supplied template and case files to fill in forms, contracts, or legal documents. It also reports where each filled value came from and which details are missing.
contract-review
A contract-review workflow for agreements governed by Chinese law, United States law, or both. It examines clauses one by one and produces a list of legal-risk questions, with an optional marked-up Word document.
fedramp
Expert guidance for FedRAMP certification and compliance under CR26 (FedRAMP Consolidated Rules for 2026). Use this skill whenever a user asks about FedRAMP authorization, ATO (Authority to Operate), cloud security for federal government, NIST SP 800-53 controls, CSP compliance, or any of the core FedRAMP document…
eu-cra
Expert EU Cyber Resilience Act (CRA) advisor for Regulation (EU) 2024/2847 — mandatory cybersecurity and vulnerability handling requirements for all products with digital elements (PDEs) sold in the EU. Use this skill for gap analysis, product classification (Default / Class I / Class II), conformity assessment route…
aenderungsvorbehalt-308
Für Änderungsvorbehalt 308: ordnet Norm, Beweislast und Gegenargument; Ergebnis: Prüfprodukt mit Risiko und nächstem Schritt.