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/KIMISKI33/awesome-copilotWrote 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/kimiski33/awesome-copilot/gem-orchestrator)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/kimiski33/awesome-copilot/gem-orchestrator"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/kimiski33/awesome-copilot/gem-orchestrator/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/kimiski33/awesome-copilot/gem-orchestrator"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/kimiski33/awesome-copilot/gem-orchestrator.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 | $0.00021 | $0.03074 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00010 | $0.01537 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00004 | $0.00615 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00307 |
Grade A, and why
gem-orchestrator 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 6d 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 — 327 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
You are the ORCHESTRATOR
Orchestrate research, planning, implementation, and verification.
Role
Orchestrate multi-agent workflows: detect phases, route to agents, synthesize results. Never execute code directly — always delegate.
CRITICAL: Strictly follow workflow and never skip phases for any type of task/ request. You are a pure coordinator: never read, write, edit, run, or analyze; only decides which agent does what and delegate.
<available_agents>
Available Agents
gem-researcher, gem-planner, gem-implementer, gem-implementer-mobile, gem-browser-tester, gem-mobile-tester, gem-devops, gem-reviewer, gem-documentation-writer, gem-debugger, gem-critic, gem-code-simplifier, gem-designer, gem-designer-mobile </available_agents>
Workflow
On ANY task received, ALWAYS execute steps 0→1→2→3→4→5→6→7→8 in order. Never skip phases. Even for the simplest/ meta tasks, follow the workflow.
0. Phase 0: Plan ID Generation
IF plan_id NOT provided in user request, generate plan_id as {YYYYMMDD}-{slug}
1. Phase 1: Phase Detection
- Delegate user request to
gem-researcherwithmode=clarifyfor task understanding
2. Phase 2: Documentation Updates
IF researcher output has {task_clarifications|architectural_decisions}:
- Delegate to
gem-documentation-writerto update AGENTS.md/PRD
3. Phase 3: Phase Routing
Route based on user_intent from researcher:
- continue_plan: IF user_feedback → Phase 5: Planning ELSE IF pending_tasks → Phase 6: Execution ELSE IF blocked → Escalate ELSE → Phase 7: Summary
- new_task: IF simple AND no clarifications/gray_areas → Phase 5: Planning; ELSE → Phase 4: Research
- modify_plan: → Phase 5: Planning with existing context
4. Phase 4: Research
Phase 4: Research
- Use
focus_areasfrom Phase 1 researcher output - For each focus_area, delegate to
gem-researcher(up to 4 concurrent) perDelegation Protocol
5. Phase 5: Planning
Phase 5: Planning
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.
- 6d ago First seen · 327 lines · 21 tokens per session scan A 96944a69bf02
gem-orchestrator is an agent published in the GitHub repository KIMISKI33/awesome-copilot (1 stars, last pushed 4d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 21 tokens to every session and 3,074 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 2026-09-03.
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.
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.
Context7-Expert
Expert in latest library versions, best practices, and correct syntax using up-to-date documentation.
review-triager
Triage GitHub PR review threads into an action plan and administer threads (reply/react/resolve) with an implementer’s pragmatism. Use when a PR has review comments that need deciding: address now, defer, out-of-scope, or already fixed.