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 motion-opposition-draftergit 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/motion-opposition-drafter)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/zgbrenner/agentcounsel/motion-opposition-drafter"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/zgbrenner/agentcounsel/motion-opposition-drafter/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/motion-opposition-drafter"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/zgbrenner/agentcounsel/motion-opposition-drafter.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 | $0.00063 | $0.01944 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00032 | $0.00972 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00013 | $0.00389 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00194 |
Grade A, and why
Motion Opposition Drafter 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 — 119 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Motion Opposition Drafter
Purpose
Produce a disciplined first draft of an opposition or response brief for attorney review. The workflow deconstructs the movant's actual papers, maps each argument to a point-by-point response, cites only provided record materials, and treats every movant authority as unverified. It never invents counter-authority. A missing authority becomes a visible research referral rather than a fabricated citation.
This skill does not decide litigation strategy, predict an outcome, or produce a final filing. The draft is legal work product for a licensed attorney to revise and approve. Do not file unreviewed.
Use When
- An opposing party has filed a dispositive or non-dispositive motion and counsel needs a first-draft opposition, response outline, or structured oral-argument outline.
- The complete motion papers and enough record material to answer them are available.
- The user needs drafting around authority already supplied or directed by counsel, not independent legal research.
- The matter is active litigation and the output will remain within attorney review.
Required Inputs
- Matter identification. Matter name, number, and enough context to identify the proceeding.
- Complete movant papers. The motion, supporting memorandum, declarations, affidavits, and exhibits. A summary is not a substitute. Stop if the papers are missing.
- Case theory and opposition position. A concise statement of why the requested relief should be denied or limited. Stop if this is missing.
- Record materials. Documents, testimony, pleadings, declarations, or other provided items supporting each response point. Every factual statement must cite a provided record item or carry
[VERIFY: record cite needed]. - Response deadline. Record only the date exactly as supplied from the docket, scheduling order, or attorney. The skill never calculates a response date and always marks it
[deadline verification required]. - Forum requirements. Pasted local rules, standing orders, page or word limits, and citation requirements. Anything not supplied remains
[CONFIRM: forum rule not provided]. - Directed authorities. Authorities counsel has already identified and authorized for use. Missing response authority remains
[citation needed]and may requireskills/legal-research/legal-research-memo/SKILL.md. - Standard of review. Use counsel's supplied formulation or
[CONFIRM: standard of review - verify jurisdiction]. - Optional: a populated
practice-profiles/litigation.md, treated as guidance rather than authority.
What ships with it
5 files 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.
- 9d ago First seen · 119 lines · 63 tokens per session scan A 006794e093e2
Motion Opposition Drafter is a skill published in the GitHub repository zgbrenner/agentcounsel (19 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 63 tokens to every session and 1,944 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 2026-09-03.
Other skills, from other repositories
legaltech-expert
Expert in legal technology: contract lifecycle management, e-discovery, AI-assisted legal research, case and matter management, document automation, and compliance tooling. Use when the user mentions legal case or matter management, e-discovery and legal holds, CLM or contract review and obligation tracking, legal…
uk-particulars-of-claim-review
Use when users say "review these Particulars of Claim", "check this PoC", "pleading gaps", "CPR 16", "PD16", "limitation issue", or need England and Wales pleadings checked for elements, material facts, remedies, parties, source support, and drafting risk.
uk-witness-statement-review
Use when users say "review this witness statement", "check this statement before service", "PD 57AC", "statement of truth", "hearsay in this witness evidence", or need England and Wales witness evidence checked for source support, CPR/PD issues, exhibits, chronology conflicts, or argument.
cookie-consent-policy
Drafts publication-ready cookie policies, banner copy, and consent-flow language under GDPR/ePrivacy, CCPA/CPRA, and major U.S. state privacy laws. Converts a verified cookie inventory into enforceable policy sections with lawful-basis mapping, granular opt-in controls, withdrawal mechanics, and user-rights handling.…
dsar-form
Drafts a GDPR- and CCPA-compliant Data Subject Access Request (DSAR) intake form for collecting requester information and processing privacy rights. Use when drafting DSAR forms, privacy rights request templates, or data subject rights workflows for EU/US-regulated organizations.
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.