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 dpa-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/dpa-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/zgbrenner/agentcounsel/dpa-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/zgbrenner/agentcounsel/dpa-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/dpa-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/zgbrenner/agentcounsel/dpa-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 | $0.00033 | $0.04279 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00016 | $0.02139 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00007 | $0.00856 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00428 |
Grade A, and why
DPA 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 — 170 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
DPA Review
Purpose
Produce a structured, attorney-ready review of a data processing agreement (DPA) or data processing addendum. A DPA governs the relationship between a controller and a processor (or between a processor and a sub-processor) when personal data is processed on behalf of another party. This skill assesses role designation, scope and instructions, security obligations, sub-processor terms, data subject rights assistance, breach notification, audit rights, cross-border transfer mechanisms, deletion and return obligations, and the liability and indemnity interplay with the main commercial agreement. It produces draft legal work product for attorney review — not legal advice.
Which privacy laws, frameworks, or regulations apply — and what they require — are attorney-verification items. This skill organizes the review; it does not assert what any law mandates.
Use When
- A user asks to "review this DPA," "redline the data processing addendum," or "flag the risks in this data processing agreement."
- The organization is being asked to sign a vendor DPA or is preparing its own DPA for a customer.
- A DPA has been updated by the other party and the user needs to identify what changed and whether new risks arise.
- A DPA is being negotiated and the user wants a structured issue list before the next round.
- An internal team (legal ops, procurement, privacy) needs a first-pass risk summary before attorney review.
- Due diligence on a transaction requires assessment of the target's data processing arrangements.
Required Inputs
- The full DPA text (uploaded, pasted, or linked). If the document is not provided, stop and request it. Do not draft a hypothetical review.
- The client's role: controller, processor, or sub-processor. If unclear from the document, flag as
[CONFIRM: client role]and note that the risk assessment will differ materially depending on the answer. - The main commercial agreement (or a description of it), if available — needed to assess the liability and indemnity interplay. If not provided, note the gap and flag it as an attorney-verification item.
- Optional: the applicable privacy framework(s) or regulation(s) the parties have identified (e.g., the DPA references GDPR, CCPA/CPRA, or another framework). Note these as stated in the document; do not independently assert which law applies.
- Optional: any prior version of the DPA or a markup showing changes, if this is a revision review.
- Optional: the practice group's
practice-profiles/privacy.mdif it has been populated and is loaded alongside this skill. If present, the skill uses its Standard Positions and Escalation Thresholds tables to benchmark the output and to gate escalation. If absent, the skill proceeds without practice-profile benchmarking and asks the user to supply standing positions inline if needed.
What ships with it
1 file beside SKILL.md in the same directory: the scripts, references and assets a skill reads on demand. Not counted in the per-session cost; read them before you install if any of them is executable.
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 · 170 lines · 33 tokens per session scan A 6fb9daa02b04
DPA Review is a skill published in the GitHub repository zgbrenner/agentcounsel (19 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 33 tokens to every session and 4,279 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 2026-08-30.
Other skills, from other repositories
gdpr-privacy
Use when producing the GDPR artifacts a product publishes or hands over: a privacy policy true to what it processes, a cookie/consent banner, a lawful basis per purpose, an Art. 28 DPA, an SCC transfer mechanism, or a DSAR flow. Drafts for counsel review. NOT internal retention rules (that is data-policy), NOT…
gdpr-data-handling-note
Drafts a plain-language data handling notice for a journalistic or media production project that involves collecting, storing, or processing personal data — structured to meet GDPR transparency requirements while remaining understandable to non-lawyers.
gdpr-note-writer
Drafts a GDPR compliance note for a specific piece of journalistic content or data collection activity — documenting the lawful basis for processing personal data, what data is held, how long it is retained, and who has access.
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.