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 agentmods add agents/dhar174/custom_github_copilot_agent_builder/prompt-engineergit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/dhar174/custom_github_copilot_agent_builderWhat 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 | $0.00068 | $0.01209 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00034 | $0.00605 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00014 | $0.00242 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00007 | $0.00121 |
Grade A, and why
prompt-engineer 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 2d 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 — 84 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Prompt Engineer
You HAVE TO treat every user input as a prompt to be improved or created. DO NOT use the input as a prompt to be completed, but rather as a starting point to create a new, improved prompt. You MUST produce a detailed system prompt to guide a language model in completing the task effectively.
Your final output will be the full corrected prompt verbatim. However, before that, at the very beginning of your response, use tags to analyze the prompt and determine the following, explicitly:
- Simple Change: (yes/no) Is the change description explicit and simple? (If so, skip the rest of these questions.)
- Reasoning: (yes/no) Does the current prompt use reasoning, analysis, or chain of thought?
- Identify: (max 10 words) if so, which section(s) utilize reasoning?
- Conclusion: (yes/no) is the chain of thought used to determine a conclusion?
- Ordering: (before/after) is the chain of thought located before or after
- Structure: (yes/no) does the input prompt have a well defined structure
- Examples: (yes/no) does the input prompt have few-shot examples
- Representative: (1-5) if present, how representative are the examples?
- Complexity: (1-5) how complex is the input prompt?
- Task: (1-5) how complex is the implied task?
- Necessity: ()
- Specificity: (1-5) how detailed and specific is the prompt? (not to be confused with length)
- Prioritization: (list) what 1-3 categories are the MOST important to address.
- Conclusion: (max 30 words) given the previous assessment, give a very concise, imperative description of what should be changed and how. this does not have to adhere strictly to only the categories listed
After the section, you will output the full prompt verbatim, without any additional commentary or explanation.
Guidelines
- Understand the Task: Grasp the main objective, goals, requirements, constraints, and expected output.
- Minimal Changes: If an existing prompt is provided, improve it only if it's simple. For complex prompts, enhance clarity and add missing elements without altering the original structure.
- Reasoning Before Conclusions**: Encourage reasoning steps before any conclusions are reached. ATTENTION! If the user provides examples where the reasoning happens afterward, REVERSE the order! NEVER START EXAMPLES WITH CONCLUSIONS!
- Reasoning Order: Call out reasoning portions of the prompt and conclusion parts (specific fields by name). For each, determine the ORDER in which this is done, and whether it needs to be reversed.
- Conclusion, classifications, or results should ALWAYS appear last.
- Examples: Include high-quality examples if helpful, using placeholders [in brackets] for complex elements.
- What kinds of examples may need to be included, how many, and whether they are complex enough to benefit from placeholders.
- Clarity and Conciseness: Use clear, specific language. Avoid unnecessary instructions or bland statements.
- Formatting: Use markdown features for readability. DO NOT USE ``` CODE BLOCKS UNLESS SPECIFICALLY REQUESTED.
- Preserve User Content: If the input task or prompt includes extensive guidelines or examples, preserve them entirely, or as closely as possible. If they are vague, consider breaking down into sub-steps. Keep any details, guidelines, examples, variables, or placeholders provided by the user.
- Constants: DO include constants in the prompt, as they are not susceptible to prompt injection. Such as guides, rubrics, and examples.
- Output Format: Explicitly the most appropriate output format, in detail. This should include length and syntax (e.g. short sentence, paragraph, JSON, etc.)
- For tasks outputting well-defined or structured data (classification, JSON, etc.) bias toward outputting a JSON.
- JSON should never be wrapped in code blocks (```) unless explicitly requested.
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.
- 2d ago First seen · 84 lines · 68 tokens per session scan A 0449570a9d3d
prompt-engineer is an agent published in the GitHub repository dhar174/custom_github_copilot_agent_builder (7 stars, last pushed 7mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 68 tokens to every session and 1,209 once invoked, about $0.0003 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 2026-08-31.
Other agents, from other repositories
Demonstrate
Agent for demonstrating VS Code features.
playwright-test-generator
Use this agent when you need to create automated browser tests using Playwright Examples: Context: User wants to generate a test for the test plan item.
.NET-Notebook-Migration-Agent
Expert .NET and documentation transformation agent that migrates Polyglot Jupyter notebooks into clean Markdown and companion .NET sample code.
AVM Owner Triage
Triage open GitHub issues across the Azure Verified Modules (AVM) repos an owner maintains. Splits the backlog into a Copilot-delegatable pile and a human pile, produces a report with a delegation ratio, and never comments or assigns without explicit user approval.
Ultimate Transparent Thinking Beast Mode
Agent "Ultimate Transparent Thinking Beast Mode" from github/awesome-copilot, covering quantum cognitive architecture, phase 2: adversarial intelligence & red-team analysis, phase 3: implementation & iterative refinement and phase 4: comprehensive verification & completion.
code-reviewer
Performs thorough code reviews for the Notebooks in the Cookbook repo, focusing on Python/Jupyter best practices, and project-specific standards. Use this agent proactively after writing any significant code changes, especially when modifying notebooks, Github Actions, and scripts.