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 reps-warranties-disclosure-schedule-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/reps-warranties-disclosure-schedule-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/zgbrenner/agentcounsel/reps-warranties-disclosure-schedule-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/zgbrenner/agentcounsel/reps-warranties-disclosure-schedule-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/reps-warranties-disclosure-schedule-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/zgbrenner/agentcounsel/reps-warranties-disclosure-schedule-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 | $0.00041 | $0.03001 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00020 | $0.01501 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00008 | $0.00600 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00300 |
Grade A, and why
Reps and Warranties Disclosure Schedule 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 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 — 255 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Reps and Warranties Disclosure Schedule Review
Purpose
Compare the representations and warranties in an M&A purchase agreement against the disclosure schedules that qualify them, and surface — from a stated side of the deal — where a representation has no matching schedule, where a schedule reference points nowhere, where an exception is drawn too broadly, where a defined term is used inconsistently, where a date has gone stale, and where the schedules still carry unresolved "to be provided" items.
This skill produces draft work product for attorney review only. It is not legal advice and is not a conclusion that the disclosures are adequate. Whether a disclosure properly qualifies a representation — and the indemnity exposure that follows — is a legal judgment for the reviewing attorney.
Use When
- A user asks to "review the disclosure schedules," "compare the reps to the schedules," "check whether every rep has a schedule," or "tell me what is still open in the schedules."
- A deal team needs a structured cross-check of the representations-and-warranties article against the disclosure schedules before signing or closing.
- A buyer- or seller-side reviewer needs to find missing schedule references, overbroad exceptions, stale dates, or unresolved placeholders in the disclosure package.
- The disclosure schedules have been delivered or updated and the team needs a rep-by-rep completeness check.
Required Inputs
- The representations-and-warranties article — uploaded or pasted. Do not review from a description, a summary, or a partial excerpt.
- The disclosure schedules — uploaded or pasted, if available. If they are not provided, the review proceeds on the representations alone and prominently flags that the schedule comparison cannot be performed.
- The side the review is for — buyer-side or seller-side.
- The deal type — for example a stock purchase, asset purchase, merger, or membership-interest purchase.
- The document set — confirm which agreement version and which schedule version are in hand, and whether anything is missing.
- Any known diligence facts — facts the user has from diligence that may bear on whether the schedules disclose what they should.
- Jurisdiction and governing law — as stated in the agreement, or flagged as unknown.
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 · 255 lines · 41 tokens per session scan A 0d650883aeec
Reps and Warranties Disclosure Schedule Review is a skill published in the GitHub repository zgbrenner/agentcounsel (19 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 41 tokens to every session and 3,001 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 2026-09-03.
Other skills, from other repositories
review-contract
Clause-by-clause contract review — inventories key clauses (term, termination, liability cap, indemnity, IP, payment, confidentiality, governing law, auto-renewal), flags deviations from market-standard positions with RED/YELLOW/GREEN severity and verbatim quotes, drafts redline language, and sets negotiation…
kr-patent-ralph-loop
An automated review-and-revision loop for Korean patent specifications, including their claims and drawings. It repeatedly checks for defects and applies fixes until the selected quality condition is met.
code-review-php
Deep PHP-specific code review covering strict types, PHPStan compliance, PSR standards, domain modeling, and ORM boundary violations. Applied in addition to the generic code-review skill when PHP code is detected. Invoked when reviewing PHP PRs, Symfony/Laravel changes, or performing PHP-specific quality checks.
common-law-quality-gate
Fertig erstelltes Common-Law-Arbeitsprodukt auf Qualitaet prüfen: Jurisdiktion Quellenstand False Friends UK/US-Trennung Review-Bedarf. Prüfraster Jurisdiktion-Konsistenz Normen-Aktualitaet False-Friends-Scan UK-US-Trennung. Output Qualitaets-Prüfbericht Lueckenliste. Abgrenzung zu common-law-false-friends-scanner…
common-law-representations-warranties-covenants
Anwalt ordnet Klauseln in Common-Law-Transaktionsvertraegen ein: reps warranties covenants conditions undertakings indemnities. Anwendungsfall SPA NDA oder Commercial Agreement. Prüfraster Klausel-Typ-Zuordnung Haftungsfolgen Survical-Period Breach-Remedies. Output Klausel-Klassifikation Risikomatrix. Abgrenzung zu…
mk:review
Multi-pass structural code review with adversarial analysis, scope-aware dispatch, adversarial persona passes, and forced-finding protocol. Supports input modes: branch diff (default), PR number (#123), commit hash, pending changes (--pending). Use when asked to "review this PR", "code review", "pre-landing review"…