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 tender-letter-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/tender-letter-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/zgbrenner/agentcounsel/tender-letter-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/zgbrenner/agentcounsel/tender-letter-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/tender-letter-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/zgbrenner/agentcounsel/tender-letter-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 | $0.00034 | $0.01582 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00017 | $0.00791 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00007 | $0.00316 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00158 |
Grade A, and why
Tender Letter 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 — 107 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Tender Letter Review
Purpose
Review a tender letter, notice of claim, additional insured tender, or contractual indemnity tender into a completeness checklist, a missing-documents list, risk flags, and proposed revisions for attorney review. This skill organizes what the tender contains and identifies gaps; it reaches no conclusion that the tender is timely, valid, or sufficient.
Use When
- A tender letter, claim notice, additional insured tender, or contractual indemnity tender must be reviewed before it is sent or after it is received.
- The user needs the tender checked for completeness, supporting documents, and risk flags.
- A draft tender needs attorney-review revisions before finalizing.
Required Inputs
- The tender or notice letter, with source references — or, if drafting-stage, the draft.
- The asserted basis for the tender — the policy (with its additional insured provisions) and/or the contract (with its insurance and indemnity clauses), with source references.
- The user's role (tendering party, party receiving the tender, insured, additional insured, insurer, broker, or other) — or
not provided. - The claim or matter being tendered — or
not provided. - The duties tendered — defense, indemnity, or both — or
not provided. - Any timing facts the user supplies (date of loss, date of suit, date of tender), echoed and marked
[deadline verification required]. - Jurisdiction and governing law, or
[verify jurisdiction].
If the letter, the asserted basis, 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 tender is timely, valid, sufficient, or properly made.
- The request is to determine additional insured status, a duty to defend or indemnify, or a contractual indemnity obligation.
- The request is to conclude on the consequences of notice timing, or for legal advice.
- The request is to approve sending the tender as final (the attorney does that).
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 · 107 lines · 34 tokens per session scan A 6d50fbd28dc6
Tender Letter Review is a skill published in the GitHub repository zgbrenner/agentcounsel (19 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 34 tokens to every session and 1,582 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.