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 nda-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/nda-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/zgbrenner/agentcounsel/nda-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/zgbrenner/agentcounsel/nda-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/nda-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/zgbrenner/agentcounsel/nda-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 | $0.00042 | $0.03843 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00021 | $0.01921 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00008 | $0.00769 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00384 |
Grade A, and why
NDA 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 — 154 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
NDA Review
Purpose
Produce a structured, attorney-ready review of a non-disclosure agreement (NDA) or confidentiality agreement. The skill identifies key terms, flags risk-allocation issues, assigns an overall triage rating, and proposes prioritized redline points. It produces draft legal work product for attorney review — not legal advice and not a final negotiating position.
Use When
- A user asks to "review this NDA," "check this confidentiality agreement," or "tell me what's risky here."
- A counterparty has sent an NDA and the user needs a first-pass risk read.
- The user wants a route / flag / stop call on whether an NDA can move toward signature.
- The user wants a redline priority list before negotiation.
- The user wants a plain-language summary of an NDA's obligations.
Required Inputs
- The full NDA text (uploaded or pasted). Do not review from a description alone.
- The client's role: disclosing party, receiving party, or mutual.
- The business context: what is being shared and why.
- The transaction context: whether this is a stand-alone commercial NDA, or part of an M&A, employment, or investment deal.
- Optional but recommended: the client's standard NDA positions or playbook — acceptable terms, "never accept" terms, mutuality default, required carve-outs, term and survival caps, and governing-law preferences. The review benchmarks against these where they are provided.
- Optional: the practice group's
practice-profiles/contracts.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.
If the NDA text is not provided, stop and request it. Do not reconstruct or assume contract language.
Do Not Use When
- The document is not an NDA (use
contract-risk-reviewfor general commercial agreements). - The user needs a summary of tracked edits between drafts (use
redline-summary). - The confidentiality terms are one section of a larger commercial agreement (use
contract-risk-review). - The NDA is part of an M&A, employment, or investment transaction — confidentiality terms in those contexts carry deal-specific risk and should be reviewed with specialist counsel rather than triaged as a stand-alone commercial NDA.
- The request is for a statement of legal advice or a final negotiating position — those require an attorney.
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 · 154 lines · 42 tokens per session scan A be26f58bc0a6
NDA Review is a skill published in the GitHub repository zgbrenner/agentcounsel (19 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 42 tokens to every session and 3,843 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
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.
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…
Contract Drafter
Generate legal contracts from templates with variable substitution and clause management.
cross-check-legal-advice
Use AI for legal issue-spotting, plain-language clause explanations, and questions to verify with licensed counsel.