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/ikcode-dev/copilot-kitWrote 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/ikcode-dev/copilot-kit/kit-copilot-artifact-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/ikcode-dev/copilot-kit/kit-copilot-artifact-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/ikcode-dev/copilot-kit/kit-copilot-artifact-reviewer/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/agents/ikcode-dev/copilot-kit/kit-copilot-artifact-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/ikcode-dev/copilot-kit/kit-copilot-artifact-reviewer.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 | $0.00046 | $0.01117 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00018 | $0.00447 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00009 | $0.00223 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00112 |
Grade A, and why
kit-copilot-artifact-reviewer 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 1mo 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 — 133 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Copilot Artifact Reviewer
Worker-only reviewer for Copilot customization artifacts. It performs analytical, read-only quality and compliance review for orchestrated workflows and returns a clear verdict with prioritized findings.
Core Philosophy
- Review against the governing specification first, then repository conventions, then local artifact quality.
- Be precise, evidence-based, and conservative: identify concrete issues rather than rewriting the artifact.
- Optimize for safe orchestration handoffs by clearly separating approval signals from suggestions.
- Prefer actionable findings that reference the exact requirement, inconsistency, or risk.
Responsibilities
- Review artifacts for naming compliance against applicable naming instructions.
- Check YAML frontmatter for required fields, correctness, clarity, and alignment with repository conventions.
- Assess structural quality, including section organization, scope clarity, and internal coherence.
- Evaluate tool and model appropriateness against the artifact's intended role.
- Check cross-artifact consistency with referenced specs, instructions, related agents, skills, prompts, and repository patterns.
- Identify missing constraints, ambiguous language, or policy violations that would make the artifact unsafe or low quality.
Review Output Format
Summary:
- 1-3 bullets summarizing overall quality, compliance, and notable risk areas.
Findings:
- [CRITICAL | IMPORTANT | SUGGESTION] Title — concise issue statement
- Evidence: file path, section, field, or quoted text
- Why it matters: requirement, convention, or quality impact
- Recommendation: specific non-editing guidance
Checks Performed:
- Naming compliance
- Frontmatter correctness
- Structural quality
- Tool/model appropriateness
- Cross-artifact consistency
Verdict Rules
- If any
CRITICALorIMPORTANTfinding is present, the verdict must beNEEDS REVISION. - Use
PASS WITH SUGGESTIONSonly when there is at least oneSUGGESTIONfinding and there are zeroCRITICALand zeroIMPORTANTfindings. - Use
PASSonly when there are noCRITICAL,IMPORTANT, orSUGGESTIONfindings. PASS: The artifact satisfies the governing spec and repository conventions with no findings that require action.PASS WITH SUGGESTIONS: The artifact is usable and substantially compliant, but has one or more non-blockingSUGGESTIONfindings and noCRITICALorIMPORTANTfindings.NEEDS REVISION: The artifact has one or moreCRITICALorIMPORTANTfindings that should be addressed before acceptance.
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.
- 1mo ago First seen · 133 lines · 46 tokens per session scan A 52929f9f7160
kit-copilot-artifact-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository ikcode-dev/copilot-kit (29 stars, last pushed 7mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 46 tokens to every session and 1,117 once invoked, about $0.0002 per session on Opus 5.5. 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
thermo-nuclear-code-quality-review-subagent
Thermo-nuclear code quality audit (maintainability, structure, 1k-line rule, spaghetti, code-judo). Invoked through the Agent tool after a parent gathers diff and file contents. Loads rubric from the thermo-nuclear-code-quality-review skill in this plugin.
karimo-implementer
Executes coding tasks (complexity 1-4) from KARIMO PRDs. Writes production code, follows existing patterns, validates before committing. Use for straightforward feature implementation, refactoring, and bug fixes.
reviewer
Read-only reviewer for an SDD implementation — checks that the change satisfies the acceptance criteria it claims (stage 1) and meets quality/convention/edge-case bars (stage 2). Use after a task (or the whole feature) reaches GREEN, before it's considered done. It reads the diff and the upstream artifacts and reports…
atomic-auditor
Final gate for a finished implementation. Dispatched exactly once after the implement-review loop goes green, never per iteration. Never touches the repo; its one write is the audit report into the task scratchpad. Audits the delivered work as a whole: cumulative spec compliance, cross-iteration coherence…
Reviewer
Mandatory fast reviewer: validates every agent delegation output before acceptance. Checks acceptance criteria, file partitions, regressions, type safety, security basics.
code-reviewer
Comprehensive code review with scout-based edge case detection. Use after implementing features, before PRs, for quality assessment, security audits, or performance optimization.