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 restrictive-covenant-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/restrictive-covenant-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/zgbrenner/agentcounsel/restrictive-covenant-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/zgbrenner/agentcounsel/restrictive-covenant-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/restrictive-covenant-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/zgbrenner/agentcounsel/restrictive-covenant-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 | $0.00082 | $0.03006 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00041 | $0.01503 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00016 | $0.00601 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00008 | $0.00301 |
Grade A, and why
Restrictive Covenant 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 — 127 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Restrictive Covenant Review
Purpose
Produce a structured, attorney-ready review of restrictive covenants — non-competition, non-solicitation (of customers or employees), no-hire, and confidentiality provisions — wherever they appear: an offer letter, an employment or consulting agreement, an equity or incentive award, or a separation document. The skill inventories each covenant's scope exactly as written, organizes the enforceability factors as questions for counsel, and flags consideration and conflict-posture issues. It never concludes that a covenant is or is not enforceable — enforceability is intensely jurisdiction-specific and is an attorney determination. This is draft legal work product for attorney review, not legal advice.
Use When
- An employer is drafting or imposing covenants in an offer, employment agreement, equity award, or separation document and wants the scope and risk points organized before finalizing.
- An employee has been asked to sign covenants and wants a structured read of what each one restricts.
- A new employer is assessing the covenants an incoming hire signed with a prior employer, to understand the conflict posture before the hire starts.
- Covenants are being added or expanded at separation and their reach beyond any prior agreement needs to be mapped.
- A user asks "are these non-competes a problem?" or "what do these restrictions actually cover?"
Required Inputs
- The document(s) containing the covenants, in full. If the covenants are described but not provided, stop and request the text. Never reconstruct covenant language from memory.
- The client's posture: employer imposing, employee bound, or new employer assessing an incoming hire's prior covenants. The risk framing differs materially by posture.
- The role, compensation, and work location(s) of the affected individual, as provided — scope reasonableness and which jurisdiction's law may apply both turn on these.
- Optional: the consideration offered for the covenants (initial employment, a raise, promotion, equity, severance, or other).
- Optional: any prior agreements the same individual has signed that bear on the covenants (a prior non-compete, an assignment agreement, a handbook acknowledgment).
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 · 127 lines · 82 tokens per session scan A 59a8fb1ec2e2
Restrictive Covenant Review is a skill published in the GitHub repository zgbrenner/agentcounsel (19 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 82 tokens to every session and 3,006 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 2026-08-30.
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.
redline-sentry
Review NDAs, MSAs, DPAs, SaaS agreements, and other procurement contracts against a configurable risk playbook. Use whenever the user drops a contract file (PDF, DOCX) and asks to redline, review, summarise risk, check clauses, or "what would procurement say". Trigger on phrases like "review this NDA", "redline this…
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…