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 statutory-interpretationgit 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/statutory-interpretation)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/zgbrenner/agentcounsel/statutory-interpretation"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/zgbrenner/agentcounsel/statutory-interpretation/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/statutory-interpretation"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/zgbrenner/agentcounsel/statutory-interpretation.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 | $0.00045 | $0.02951 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00023 | $0.01476 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00009 | $0.00590 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00295 |
Grade A, and why
Statutory Interpretation 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 6d 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 — 156 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Statutory Interpretation
Purpose
Apply a disciplined, jurisdiction-agnostic analytical method for working through a statutory, regulatory, or contractual provision. The skill guides systematic parsing of operative text, mapping of structure and defined terms, framing of the precise interpretive question, identification of ambiguities and competing candidate readings, and flagging of every jurisdiction-specific interpretive question for attorney verification. It produces draft legal work product for attorney review — not legal advice and not an authoritative interpretation.
This skill teaches and applies the analytical method only. It does not and must not assert how any particular jurisdiction's courts interpret text, must not cite or invoke jurisdiction-specific interpretive canons as if they were settled authority, and must flag every jurisdiction-bound interpretive point with [verify jurisdiction]. What interpretive tools apply, what weight they carry, and what result they yield in a given jurisdiction are attorney-verification items without exception.
Use When
- A user needs to analyze what a provision means or whether it applies to a given set of facts.
- The scope, reach, or limits of a statutory, regulatory, or contractual obligation are disputed or unclear.
- A user asks to "parse this provision," "interpret this clause," "what does this section mean," or "does this apply to my situation."
- Competing readings of the same text need to be identified, compared, and evaluated for purposes of drafting a memo, brief section, or negotiation position.
- A provision contains ambiguity, a defined term with contested scope, or a structure question (such as whether a modifier applies to one element or all of them) that requires systematic analysis before attorney resolution.
- A gap or conflict between two provisions needs to be framed before attorney analysis.
Required Inputs
- The exact text of the provision to be interpreted. Do not analyze from paraphrase or description alone; the operative language must be present.
- The document or instrument in which the provision appears (statute, regulation, contract, ordinance, rule, or other), and the section or clause reference if known.
- The interpretive question: what specific question is the analysis trying to answer? If the user has not stated a specific question, stop and ask — do not assume scope.
- The factual context in which the provision is being applied: the facts or circumstances that trigger or potentially trigger the provision.
- Optional but recommended: the jurisdiction and governing law, so that jurisdiction-specific verification items can be targeted. If not provided, flag all jurisdiction-bound points with
[verify jurisdiction]. - Optional: related provisions, definitions sections, or other parts of the same instrument that affect the provision's meaning.
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.
- 6d ago First seen · 156 lines · 45 tokens per session scan A e825bcb179b3
Statutory Interpretation is a skill published in the GitHub repository zgbrenner/agentcounsel (19 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 45 tokens to every session and 2,951 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.
cdm-2015-check
Check a UK construction project against CDM 2015 duty-holder requirements and determine F10 notifiability. Use when the user asks about "CDM 2015", "CDM check", "F10", "notifiable project", "duty holders", or is scoping a new project and needs the CDM picture. Outputs duty-holder roles, F10 y/n with reasoning…
cis-verification
Walk a UK contractor through Construction Industry Scheme (CIS) subcontractor verification and calculate the correct deduction. Use when the user asks about "CIS", "CIS verification", "subcontractor deduction", "CIS rate", or is paying a subbie and needs to work out tax. Covers HMRC verification steps, 0/20/30% rate…
rams-generator
Draft a UK construction Risk Assessment and Method Statement (RAMS) from a task description. Use when the user asks for "RAMS", "risk assessment", "method statement", "draft a RAMS for [task]", or needs a working RAMS draft before a competent-person review. Covers hazard identification, 5x5 risk matrix, control…