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 reservation-of-rights-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/reservation-of-rights-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/zgbrenner/agentcounsel/reservation-of-rights-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/zgbrenner/agentcounsel/reservation-of-rights-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/reservation-of-rights-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/zgbrenner/agentcounsel/reservation-of-rights-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 | $0.00031 | $0.01566 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00015 | $0.00783 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00006 | $0.00313 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00157 |
Grade A, and why
Reservation of Rights 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 — 106 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Reservation of Rights Review
Purpose
Review a reservation of rights (ROR) letter or related coverage correspondence into a source-cited issue list and a provision-reference table, so a qualified attorney can evaluate what the letter says, what it relies on, and what is unclear. This skill organizes and cross-references the letter against the policy; it reaches no conclusion on whether the reservation is legally sufficient or effective.
Use When
- A reservation of rights letter or coverage-position letter must be reviewed and organized for an attorney.
- An insured or insurer needs the letter's reserved rights, cited provisions, and information requests mapped against the policy.
- Coverage correspondence must be checked for clarity, consistency, and completeness before a response.
Required Inputs
- The reservation of rights letter or coverage correspondence, with source references to paragraphs or sections.
- The policy or a completed
insurance-policy-summary, with source references — so cited provisions can be cross-referenced. - The policy type — or
not provided. - The user's role (insurer, insured, additional insured, defense counsel, coverage counsel, or other) — or
not provided. - The claim or matter the letter addresses — or
not provided. - Any dates in the letter, echoed and marked
[deadline verification required]. - Jurisdiction and governing law, or
[verify jurisdiction].
If the letter, the policy, or the user's role is missing, record it as not provided and return the missing-information list first.
Do Not Use When
- The request is to conclude whether the reservation is legally sufficient, effective, timely, or properly preserves any right.
- The request is to decide whether independent or "Cumis"-type counsel is required, or whether a conflict of interest exists.
- The request is to conclude on coverage or a duty to defend, or to draft a final ROR or denial.
- The request is for legal advice.
Also out of scope (this skill does not): conclude that a reservation is legally sufficient, effective, or timely; determine whether rights were adequately reserved or waived; decide whether independent counsel is required; conclude on coverage, a duty to defend, or a conflict of interest; draft a final ROR or denial; or constitute legal advice.
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 · 106 lines · 31 tokens per session scan A 12eea1399204
Reservation of Rights Review is a skill published in the GitHub repository zgbrenner/agentcounsel (19 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 31 tokens to every session and 1,566 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
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…
aenderungsvorbehalt-308
Für Änderungsvorbehalt 308: ordnet Norm, Beweislast und Gegenargument; Ergebnis: Prüfprodukt mit Risiko und nächstem Schritt.