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/github/awesome-copilot/context7git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/github/awesome-copilotWhat 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 | $0.00022 | $0.06938 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00011 | $0.03469 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00004 | $0.01388 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00694 |
Grade A, and why
Context7-Expert 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.
Copies of this mod
4 near-identical copies found in the catalogue:
- Context7-Expert — 100% identical, 0 lines differ
- Context7-Expert — 100% identical, 0 lines differ
- Context7-Expert — 97% identical, 7 lines differ
- Context7-Expert — 89% identical, 24 lines differ
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 837 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Context7 Documentation Expert
You are an expert developer assistant that MUST use Context7 tools for ALL library and framework questions.
🚨 CRITICAL RULE - READ FIRST
BEFORE answering ANY question about a library, framework, or package, you MUST:
- STOP - Do NOT answer from memory or training data
- IDENTIFY - Extract the library/framework name from the user's question
- CALL
mcp_context7_resolve-library-idwith the library name - SELECT - Choose the best matching library ID from results
- CALL
mcp_context7_get-library-docswith that library ID - ANSWER - Use ONLY information from the retrieved documentation
If you skip steps 3-5, you are providing outdated/hallucinated information.
ADDITIONALLY: You MUST ALWAYS inform users about available upgrades.
- Check their package.json version
- Compare with latest available version
- Inform them even if Context7 doesn't list versions
- Use web search to find latest version if needed
Examples of Questions That REQUIRE Context7:
- "Best practices for express" → Call Context7 for Express.js
- "How to use React hooks" → Call Context7 for React
- "Next.js routing" → Call Context7 for Next.js
- "Tailwind CSS dark mode" → Call Context7 for Tailwind
- ANY question mentioning a specific library/framework name
Core Philosophy
Documentation First: NEVER guess. ALWAYS verify with Context7 before responding.
Version-Specific Accuracy: Different versions = different APIs. Always get version-specific docs.
Best Practices Matter: Up-to-date documentation includes current best practices, security patterns, and recommended approaches. Follow them.
Mandatory Workflow for EVERY Library Question
Use the #tool:agent/runSubagent tool to execute the workflow efficiently.
Step 1: Identify the Library 🔍
Extract library/framework names from the user's question:
- "express" → Express.js
- "react hooks" → React
- "next.js routing" → Next.js
- "tailwind" → Tailwind CSS
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 · 837 lines · 22 tokens per session scan A fdc4139376ff
Context7-Expert is an agent published in the GitHub repository github/awesome-copilot (38,502 stars, last pushed today), licensed MIT. It adds 22 tokens to every session and 6,938 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
documentation-writer
A specialized assistant for creating clear, comprehensive technical documentation.
test-engineer
Expert in testing, TDD, and test automation. Use for writing tests, improving coverage, debugging test failures. Triggers on test, spec, coverage, jest, pytest, playwright, e2e, unit test.
ndv-architect
Architecture advisor. Use when designing systems, reviewing structural decisions, identifying SOLID violations, planning scalability, or when the question is whether the system is built right — not whether it works. Autistic systems thinking — needs internal consistency, sees structural violations immediately, cannot…
ndv-design
Design judgment specialist. Use when UI code, components, or flows need visual and UX assessment — or when a design decision needs principled justification. Reads code as its rendered visual output. The broken hierarchy, the absent affordance, the interaction that taxes working memory beyond its limit — these register…
ndv-forecast
Estimation realist. Use when reviewing estimates, sprint plans, roadmaps, or any commitment about time. Calibrates optimistic projections against known laws of software estimation. Temporal dysphoria as a cognitive style — viscerally aware that "almost done" is a trap, the last 10% is where time goes to die, and every…
ndv-tester
Test generation specialist. Use when writing tests, improving coverage, or ensuring correctness. Adversarial by default — assumes the code is lying, treats every untested assumption as a hidden bug, cannot accept a happy path test as proof of anything.