Negative Treatment Check

Negative Treatment Check is a skill for Claude Code, Codex from zgbrenner/agentcounsel. It costs 75 tokens per session (2,497 once invoked), scanned A, original, MIT.

A structured plan for checking whether the cases and other legal authorities in a draft are still reliable law. It records the citations, organizes verification steps, and leaves conclusions open when no supplied citator information confirms them.

In plain words
What is it for?
It helps review citations in briefs and research memos before filing or relying on them.
Why use it?
It reduces the risk of relying on a case that was later overruled, limited, superseded, or distinguished. It prevents unsupported guesses about an authority's current status.

Skill for Claude CodeCodex

Written for no agent in particular: nothing here depends on one.

Good fit It helps review citations in briefs and research memos before filing or relying on them.

Compare 6 skills from other repositories ↓
Install with agentmods
npx agentmods add skills/zgbrenner/agentcounsel/negative-treatment-check
Install

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.

Any agent
npx skills add zgbrenner/agentcounsel --skill negative-treatment-check
Clone the repo
git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/zgbrenner/agentcounsel

Made for: Claude Code, Codex.

Wrote 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.

agentmods badge for Negative Treatment Check

README.md
[![agentmods](https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/zgbrenner/agentcounsel/negative-treatment-check/github.svg)](https://agentmods.dev/skills/zgbrenner/agentcounsel/negative-treatment-check)
Your own site
<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/zgbrenner/agentcounsel/negative-treatment-check"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/zgbrenner/agentcounsel/negative-treatment-check/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.

agentmods 80×15 button for Negative Treatment Check

Your own site · 80×15
<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/zgbrenner/agentcounsel/negative-treatment-check"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/zgbrenner/agentcounsel/negative-treatment-check.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>
Per session 75 Skills are progressive disclosure: only the name and description are preloaded; the body loads when the skill is used.
When invoked 2,497 The whole file, excluding the scripts and references it only reads on demand.
Security scan A 0 findings. A grade says what 26 rules found in the file — not that it is safe.
Origin original No closer match found in the catalogue.
Token cost

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.

ModelPer sessionOnce invoked
Fable 5.1 $0.00075 $0.02497
Opus 5 $0.00037 $0.01248
Sonnet 5 $0.00015 $0.00499
Haiku 4.5 $0.00007 $0.00250

Measured 9d ago against content hash 22391fbe03fa, method: parsed. Prices are Anthropic first-party input rates as of 2026-09-12, from the pricing page.

Security

Grade A, and why

Negative Treatment Check 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.

skills/legal-research/negative-treatment-check/SKILL.md · 116 lines

How it starts

The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 116 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.

Negative Treatment Check

Purpose

Organize a disciplined "is this still good law" check for every authority cited in a draft or research memo. For each authority, the skill records the citation as provided, structures a verification plan using available connectors and any user-supplied citator reports, and classifies the authority's verification status. It never asserts from model memory that a case is good law, has been overruled, superseded, limited, or distinguished — model-memory treatment claims are exactly the hallucination this library exists to prevent. Every treatment conclusion is either drawn from a provided, attributed source or left as an explicit [Verify current law] item for attorney confirmation. This is draft legal work product for attorney review, not legal advice.

Use When

  • A research memo or brief is nearly final and every cited authority needs a good-law check before it is filed or relied upon.
  • A user asks "is this case still good law?" or "have any of these authorities been overruled?" and wants the verification organized rather than guessed.
  • A citation list has been assembled and the team needs a treatment-verification plan before an attorney signs off.
  • Citator reports have been pulled from a vendor service and the signals need to be organized into a per-authority status table.
  • A cited authority is old, from a fast-moving area, or central to the argument, and its current status must be confirmed.

Required Inputs

  • The draft, memo, or citation list whose authorities need checking, with each authority's full citation as it appears in the source. If only a description is provided, request the actual citations — never reconstruct a citation.
  • Optional: any citator reports or validation printouts the user has already obtained from a citation service. These are recorded as attributed claims from a provided source.
  • Optional: access to a citation-verification connector (for example, connectors/courtlistener.md for federal case law) — used to confirm that an authority exists and to retrieve its text and later history where the connector supports it.

Read the full file on GitHub · 116 lines

Changes

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.

  1. 9d ago First seen · 116 lines · 75 tokens per session scan A 22391fbe03fa

Subscribe to this mod's changes

Negative Treatment Check is a skill published in the GitHub repository zgbrenner/agentcounsel (19 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 75 tokens to every session and 2,497 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 2026-09-03.

Related

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.

code-lawyer/Legal-Agent-Skills · 144 tokens

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.

code-lawyer/Legal-Agent-Skills · 61 tokens

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.

code-lawyer/Legal-Agent-Skills · 86 tokens

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…

Sushegaad/Claude-Skills-Governance-Risk-and-Compliance · 236 tokens

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…

Sushegaad/Claude-Skills-Governance-Risk-and-Compliance · 133 tokens

aenderungsvorbehalt-308

Für Änderungsvorbehalt 308: ordnet Norm, Beweislast und Gegenargument; Ergebnis: Prüfprodukt mit Risiko und nächstem Schritt.

Klotzkette/claude-fuer-deutsches-recht · 41 tokens