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 zhou210712/claude-for-legal-ZH --skill brief-section-draftergit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/zhou210712/claude-for-legal-ZHWrote 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/zhou210712/claude-for-legal-zh/brief-section-drafter)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/zhou210712/claude-for-legal-zh/brief-section-drafter"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/zhou210712/claude-for-legal-zh/brief-section-drafter/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/zhou210712/claude-for-legal-zh/brief-section-drafter"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/zhou210712/claude-for-legal-zh/brief-section-drafter.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 | $0.00076 | $0.01362 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00038 | $0.00681 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00015 | $0.00272 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00008 | $0.00136 |
Grade A, and why
brief-section-drafter 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.
Copies of this mod
1 near-identical copy found in the catalogue:
- deposition-prep — 89% identical, 159 lines differ
What it actually says
/brief-section-drafter
- 加载
~/.claude/plugins/config/claude-for-legal/litigation-legal/CLAUDE.md→ 案件理论、内部风格。 - 遵循以下工作流。
- 按内部格式/语气/引用风格起草。与理论一致。
- 输出:草案章节。标记每个需要核实的事实或引用。
法律文书章节起草
目的
一份好的文书章节与理论一致,有案卷引用,以内部风格撰写,且可核查。本技能产生初稿——重点在稿。律师修改定稿。
书面还是口头?
起草前询问:"这是用于书面提交还是口头辩论?"它们是不同的技艺:
- 书面: 完整。覆盖要点,展开法律依据,预判回应。
- 口头: 策略性。选3-4个最重要的点。放弃弱的。从最强的开始。
记录保真——引用和精确定位
逐字引用必须逐字。 除非你有确切的段落并可以引用到它,不要对对方律师、证人、法庭或任何案卷文件的话语加引号。
精确引用必须支持整个命题。 如果论点是"对方说X、Y和Z"且你在引用一个精确引用,核实该精确引用支持X和Y和Z。
对弱势论点的坦诚
当法律对你不利时,直说。当一个论点弱——法律依据指向反方向,事实不支持,推论牵强——不要构建一个摇晃的论点并将其呈现为坚实的。标记它:
"这一论点较弱——[法律依据]指向反方向。考虑是否推进(如此框架)、让步并转向[更强的论点],或放弃。
[需审查——策略性决定]。"
加载上下文
~/.claude/plugins/config/claude-for-legal/litigation-legal/CLAUDE.md → 案件理论、内部风格(引用格式、结构、语气)。
工作流
步骤1:哪个章节?
| 章节 | 功能 | 所需输入 |
|---|---|---|
| 事实与理由(起诉状/答辩状) | 以己方框架讲故事,引用案卷 | 大事记、关键文件 |
| 代理意见 | 提出法律论据 | 问题、法律依据、事实 |
| 上诉请求 | 请求救济 | 想要什么 |
| 上诉理由 | 指出原审错误 | 原审判决、新证据 |
| 再审申请书 | 指出生效裁判错误 | 生效裁判文书、新证据 |
步骤2:理论检查
写作前:本章节需要为理论完成什么?
如果即将起草的章节与理论矛盾——停止。要么理论错要么章节方法错。标记,不要粉饰。
步骤3:按内部风格起草
按 ~/.claude/plugins/config/claude-for-legal/litigation-legal/CLAUDE.md:
- 引用格式: 法条引用规范化(全名+条文编号)。案例引用规范。
- 结构: 如何组织论点?结论在先还是逐步展开?
- 语气: 进取型还是克制型?匹配律所/法务风格。
- 中国法律文书规范: 起诉状、答辩状、代理词、上诉状各有法定格式要求。
步骤4:引用一切
每个事实 → 案卷引用(证据编号、页码)。 每个法律命题 → 法条引用附精确条文编号。
标记规范——大量使用:
[需核实:具体事实主张]—— 任何未与案卷核实的内容[不确定:具体法律命题]—— 任何未与现行法律依据核实的内容[需要引用:具体引用——事实/规则相信存在但引用尚未精确定位]
步骤5:输出
章节草案,以内部风格,内联标记。
[工作成果标题]
## 起草说明 —— [章节] —— [日期]
**理论关联:** [本章节如何支持案件理论]
**所依赖的法律依据:** [列表——均需核实]
**需核实的案卷引用:** [N] 处内联标记
**待审查人确认的开放问题:** [草案假设的任何应确认的内容]
---
[章节正文]
---
**草案而非定稿。** 提交法律文书具有法律后果——它成为案卷,约束当事人就所主张的事实和论点,且诚实信用原则(《民事诉讼法》第13条 `[法条原文]`)要求附签名。有执业资格的律师审查、编辑并在入卷前承担专业责任。不要提交未经审查的文书。
本技能不做什么
- 产生最终文书。它产生草案。每个引用需要核实,每个论点需要律师把关。
- 决定策略。如果有两种论证方式,标记两种让律师选择。
- 提交任何东西。从不。
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 · 113 lines · 76 tokens per session scan A 61d2de0bcefd
brief-section-drafter is a skill published in the GitHub repository zhou210712/claude-for-legal-ZH (212 stars, last pushed 4mo ago), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 76 tokens to every session and 1,362 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 2026-09-03.
Other skills, from other repositories
specification-writing
A workflow for writing complete patent specifications from patent claims and an invention disclosure. It adapts the document to a chosen jurisdiction, such as the US, Europe, or China.
regulatory-research-fallback
Fallback workflow for regulatory research when web extraction tools fail on government PDFs.
x-scorecard
OpenSSF Scorecard for assessing open source project security. Check security best practices and compliance. Dependency: This is an x-cmd module. Install x-cmd first (see x-cmd skill for installation options). see x-cmd skill for installation.
gesellschaftsrechtliche-satzungen-agb
Für Gesellschaftsrechtliche Satzungen AGB Abgrenzung: ordnet Norm, Beweislast und Gegenargument; Ergebnis: Prüfprodukt mit Risiko und nächstem Schritt. Fachgebiet: AGB-Recht-Prüfer. Route: gesellschaftsrechtliche-satzungen-agb.
memstack-business-gdpr
Use this skill when the user says 'GDPR', 'data protection', 'privacy compliance', 'DPA', 'DSAR', 'data subject request', 'cookie consent', 'privacy audit', 'CCPA', or asks 'do I need GDPR for this repo'. Scans the repository to detect what personal data is collected, classifies sensitivity, determines whether GDPR…
nda-review
Use when the user uploads or pastes a non-disclosure agreement and asks for review, redline, risk assessment, or a recommendation on whether to sign. Identifies missing standard protections, one-sided or unusual provisions, and operational issues; produces a structured report with severity ratings and citations to…