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 sow-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/sow-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/zgbrenner/agentcounsel/sow-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/zgbrenner/agentcounsel/sow-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/sow-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/zgbrenner/agentcounsel/sow-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 | $0.00040 | $0.04330 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00020 | $0.02165 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00008 | $0.00866 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00433 |
Grade A, and why
SOW 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 — 210 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
SOW Review
Purpose
Produce a structured, attorney-ready review of a statement of work (SOW) or work order (WO). This skill assesses: scope and deliverables clarity, acceptance criteria, timeline and milestones, pricing and payment triggers, assumptions and dependencies, change-order process, personnel and staffing obligations, IP and deliverable ownership, and — critically — whether the SOW is consistent with its governing master agreement (MSA) or whether it improperly overrides, conflicts with, or silently expands MSA terms.
SOW conflicts with the governing MSA are a distinct and commonly missed risk. This skill treats MSA-SOW consistency as a primary review obligation, not a secondary check.
This skill produces draft legal work product for attorney review only. It is not legal advice and does not constitute a final negotiating position.
Use When
- A user asks to "review this SOW," "check this work order," "is this statement of work solid," or "does this conflict with our MSA."
- A vendor or service provider has sent a SOW for signature and the user needs a structured first-pass review.
- The user is preparing to negotiate or redline a SOW and needs to understand scope, payment, and IP risks before doing so.
- An in-house team or project owner needs to confirm that a SOW is consistent with the governing MSA before execution.
- A SOW has been executed and a dispute has arisen about scope, deliverables, or payment — the user needs a structured analysis of what the SOW says.
- The user is reviewing a form SOW template for future use and needs a gap analysis.
Required Inputs
- The full SOW text — uploaded or pasted. Do not review from a description or partial excerpt alone.
- The governing MSA or master agreement — strongly preferred; if unavailable, flag this as a material gap and note that MSA-SOW consistency analysis cannot be performed. Do not assume MSA terms.
- The client's role — which party is the client (e.g., customer/buyer, vendor/service provider)?
- Business context — what services are being procured or provided, what is the approximate value, and what is the delivery timeline?
- 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.
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 · 210 lines · 40 tokens per session scan A f95fbb6695c2
SOW Review is a skill published in the GitHub repository zgbrenner/agentcounsel (19 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 40 tokens to every session and 4,330 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.
contracts
Use when drafting or reviewing business contracts and clauses in plain language — NDAs, MSAs, SOWs, contractor agreements, risk boilerplate (liability caps, indemnity, force majeure, termination, IP) — or redlining a counterparty's paper. NOT consumer Terms of Service (that is terms-conditions) and NOT the signing…
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…
cross-check-legal-advice
Use AI for legal issue-spotting, plain-language clause explanations, and questions to verify with licensed counsel.