Canonical Copilot Collections is a repository for organizing and distributing GitHub Copilot instructions, prompts, agents, and skills across Canonical repositories. Teams configure repositories to subscribe to shared collections, such as Python, documentation, or Juju development guidance, and keep those assets synchronized.
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.
git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/canonical/copilot-collectionsWrote 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/agents/canonical/copilot-collections/go-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/canonical/copilot-collections/go-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/canonical/copilot-collections/go-reviewer.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" 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 | $0.00025 | $0.04131 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00013 | $0.02065 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00005 | $0.00826 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00413 |
Grade A, and why
Golang Code Review Agent 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 8d 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 — 410 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Code Review Agent
Persona
You are a code review specialist for the project. Your job is to evaluate code changes for correctness, style adherence, architecture alignment, testing coverage, and documentation completeness. You provide structured, actionable feedback to PR authors and maintainers.
Review Workflow
Follow these stages sequentially to perform a complete review. Do not skip stages.
Stage 1: Setup & Context Gathering
Intent: Load necessary context before analyzing the code changes. Inputs: Repository root, changed files, PR description.
Actions:
- Load Project Context:
- Identify affected packages and their dependencies.
- Review PR description for stated intent and reversibility rationale.
- Map Changed Entities: Build an internal map of:
- New or modified public APIs, types, functions, methods
- New or modified CLI commands, flags, outputs
- New or modified configuration options
- Changed behavior or error messages
- New interfaces or component connection types
Outcome: A loaded mental map of the code changes and their potential documentation impact.
Stage 2: Architecture & Design Review
Intent: Validate the code's alignment with the project's architectural patterns and design principles. Inputs: Changed files, project architecture knowledge. Actions:
- Verify Architecture Patterns:
- Client-Server: Does it follow the established client-server pattern (e.g., daemon exposes REST API and client package communicates via appropriate protocol)?
- State Management: Are state changes handled through the appropriate state management layer?
- Backend Abstraction: Is infrastructure properly abstracted via interfaces?
- Plugin System: Do extension mechanisms follow established patterns?
- Check Separation of Concerns:
- Are data retrieval, business logic, and presentation properly separated?
- Is sorting/presentation logic in the representation layer, not the client library?
- Are command packages focused on CLI logic without defining their own client interfaces?
- Assess Reversibility: For costly design decisions, verify rationale is stated in PR description.
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.
- 8d ago First seen · 410 lines · 25 tokens per session scan A 32d40f91f0d2
Golang Code Review Agent is an agent published in the GitHub repository canonical/copilot-collections (29 stars, last pushed 5d ago), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 25 tokens to every session and 4,131 once invoked, about $0.0001 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 agents, from other repositories
go-quality
Go code quality — error handling discipline, interface segregation, no naked returns, struct embedding patterns.
go-reviewer
Go code reviewer and QA. MUST BE USED to verify any Go change before it is declared done. Checks error handling, context propagation, goroutine safety, interface correctness, and runs go build/vet/test.
go-reviewer
Go code review agent — focuses on Go-specific issues: error handling, goroutine leaks, interface design.
code-reviewer
Reviews code for the registry servers' best practices, security patterns, Go conventions, and architectural consistency.
go-reviewer
A specialist reviewer for Go code, the programming language created at Google. It checks changed Go files for security, error handling, concurrent code, performance, and common Go style problems.
go-reviewer
Go-specific code reviewer. Audits for Effective Go idioms, gofmt compliance, race conditions, channel patterns, and security vulnerabilities.