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 competitor-collaboration-reviewgit 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/competitor-collaboration-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/zgbrenner/agentcounsel/competitor-collaboration-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/zgbrenner/agentcounsel/competitor-collaboration-review/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/competitor-collaboration-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/zgbrenner/agentcounsel/competitor-collaboration-review.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 | $0.00083 | $0.02566 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00042 | $0.01283 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00017 | $0.00513 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00008 | $0.00257 |
Grade A, and why
Competitor Collaboration Review 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 11d 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 — 123 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Competitor Collaboration Review
Purpose
Review a proposed or existing collaboration between actual or potential competitors — joint venture, R&D pact, joint purchasing, joint marketing or distribution, benchmarking, standard-setting, joint bidding, settlement collaboration — and organize what an antitrust attorney needs to assess it: verbatim hardcore-restraint flags, an information-flow matrix, ancillarity and spillover questions, and per-jurisdiction safe-harbor questions. The skill flags and asks; it never applies a safe harbor, resolves an ancillarity question, or approves the collaboration. The output is draft legal work product for attorney review only.
Use When
- A business team proposes a JV, co-development, or co-marketing arrangement with a competitor and counsel needs the draft agreement flagged before signing.
- Two competitors want to bid jointly on a tender or pool purchasing volume, and the arrangement needs hardcore-restraint and ancillarity screening.
- A standard-setting or industry working-group arrangement raises F/RAND, patent-disclosure, membership, or coordination questions.
- A draft collaboration agreement contains non-competes, exclusivity, or data-sharing annexes whose reach beyond the stated venture purpose needs to be mapped.
- Counsel asks what competitively sensitive information would flow between the parties under a proposed collaboration, and under what controls.
- An existing collaboration is being renewed or expanded and its restraints and information flows need a fresh review.
Required Inputs
- Jurisdiction(s) of competitive effect — every country and, where relevant, state/province where the collaboration would operate or have effects, or
[verify jurisdiction]. - Collaboration purpose and structure — joint venture, NDA-only information exchange, R&D pact, joint purchasing, joint marketing or distribution, benchmarking, standard-setting, joint bidding, settlement-related collaboration, or other. Mark unknowns
unknown/not found/not provided/ambiguous. - Parties' competitive posture — for each pair of parties on each product/geographic market: actual competitors, potential competitors, or unrelated. Multi-product collaborations get one row per market.
- Information exchange contemplated — categories of data (pricing, costs, customers, output, capacity, wages/hiring, future plans, R&D), granularity, age, frequency, aggregation, recipients, controls.
- Governance and independence — whether each party retains independent decision-making on price, output, customers, R&D direction, hiring, and any other competitively significant conduct outside the collaboration.
- Restrictions on competitive conduct — non-compete, exclusivity, scope limits, customer or territory carveouts, hardcore restraint candidates (price, output, allocation, boycott).
- Duration, termination, and unwind — term, termination triggers, post-termination obligations, information return/destruction.
- Safeguards — antitrust counsel oversight, clean teams, training, audits, antitrust statement at meetings.
- Business rationale and pro-competitive justifications — efficiencies the user is relying on; documents supporting them.
- Documents and source anchors — collaboration agreement(s), NDA, term sheet, board materials, business case, communications. Every extracted fact cites the document and section.
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.
- 11d ago First seen · 123 lines · 83 tokens per session scan A 0e1dcb0dd005
Competitor Collaboration Review is a skill published in the GitHub repository zgbrenner/agentcounsel (19 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 83 tokens to every session and 2,566 once invoked, about $0.0004 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 2026-08-30.
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.