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 legal-research-memogit 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/legal-research-memo)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/zgbrenner/agentcounsel/legal-research-memo"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/zgbrenner/agentcounsel/legal-research-memo/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/legal-research-memo"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/zgbrenner/agentcounsel/legal-research-memo.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 | $0.00054 | $0.02724 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00027 | $0.01362 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00011 | $0.00545 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00272 |
Grade A, and why
Legal Research Memo 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 12d 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 — 138 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Legal Research Memo
Purpose
Produce a structured, attorney-ready legal research memo in response to a discrete legal question. The memo organizes analysis using IRAC-style discipline — Question Presented, Brief Answer, Facts, Assumptions, Discussion/Analysis, Conclusion — and maintains a strict separation between facts, assumptions, applicable law, analysis, and open verification items. It produces draft legal work product for attorney review only. It is not legal advice and does not substitute for attorney judgment.
The most important discipline this skill enforces: no legal authority — no case, statute, regulation, rule, secondary source, or quotation — may be stated as if it exists unless it comes from a user-provided document or has been independently researched and verified through a reliable source. Every asserted authority must be checkable. Unverified authority must be marked with an explicit [CONFIRM: ...] placeholder and placed in the attorney verification section.
Use When
- A user asks to "research this issue," "write a research memo," "what is the law on X," or "can you analyze whether Y is legal."
- A lawyer or legal team needs a first-pass research memo before attorney analysis.
- The user needs to organize known authorities and facts into a structured memo before a client call, brief, or negotiation.
- A question of law or mixed fact-and-law has been identified and needs structured written analysis.
- The user wants to document legal assumptions underlying a transaction, filing, or decision.
- A gap analysis is needed: what authorities support a position, and what do not.
Required Inputs
- The legal question(s) — stated with specificity. Vague questions must be refined before proceeding; do not broaden or narrow the question without user confirmation.
- Jurisdiction and governing law — the applicable jurisdiction(s) and the body of law (federal, state, contractual, regulatory). If unknown, flag as
[CONFIRM: jurisdiction]and note that the analysis cannot be completed without it. - Relevant facts — the facts from which the legal question arises. Do not reconstruct or invent facts; use only facts the user has provided.
- Procedural posture — if applicable (e.g., pre-litigation, pending motion, transactional, regulatory inquiry).
- Relevant date — the date on which the legal question turns (e.g., the date of the alleged breach, the filing date, the effective date of a statute).
- Optional: any legal authorities, cases, statutes, or secondary sources the user has already identified. These will be incorporated and verified, not assumed to be accurate.
- Optional: the user's desired legal position or outcome (flags potential advocacy posture).
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.
- 12d ago First seen · 138 lines · 54 tokens per session scan A 791adff88f0c
Legal Research Memo is a skill published in the GitHub repository zgbrenner/agentcounsel (19 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 54 tokens to every session and 2,724 once invoked, about $0.0003 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
leiloeiro-edital-foolhardy45
Analise e auditoria de editais de leilao judicial e extrajudicial. Riscos ocultos, clausulas perigosas, debitos, ocupante e classificacao da oportunidade.
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…