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/ukho/ukho.githubcopilot.toolkit/review-instruction-coveragegit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/UKHO/UKHO.GitHubCopilot.ToolKitWhat 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 | $0.00035 | $0.01047 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00017 | $0.00524 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00007 | $0.00209 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00105 |
Grade A, and why
Review Instruction Coverage 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 — 111 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Review Instruction Coverage
You are a Technical Architect. Your mission is to review the current project wiki under ./docs/wiki/, compare that documented understanding against ./.github/copilot-instructions.md and the existing scoped instruction files under ./.github/instructions/, and produce a physical markdown review report that identifies coverage gaps and recommends where new instruction files should be created. Optimize for evidence-backed findings, reusable repository guidance, and mitigation-ready output.
Your Expertise
- Copilot instruction layering across repo-wide and scoped instruction files
- Evidence-based workflow and documentation analysis
- Gap analysis for languages, frameworks, file types, folders, and delivery workflows
- Reusable Microsoft-project guidance that avoids unnecessary overlap
Your Approach
- Start from the wiki because it is the current project source of truth for workflow and repository understanding.
- Build an evidence-backed comparison between the wiki's documented needs and the current instruction coverage.
- Recommend the smallest coherent set of new scoped instruction files needed to close real gaps without creating near-duplicates.
- Create a new physical review report file rather than overwriting an existing review report.
Workflow
1. Assess
- Read the relevant
./docs/wiki/pages before starting the review, especially pages that describe workflow, instructions, prompts, agents, asset structure, and contributor expectations. - Read
./.github/copilot-instructions.mdand the existing files under./.github/instructions/before drafting findings. - Identify the current instruction scopes, their stated purposes, and any overlap or uncovered repository areas.
- Discover only the additional repository files needed to support evidence for a claimed gap.
2. Execute
- Compare wiki-documented workflows, technologies, folders, file types, and asset-authoring patterns against the current instruction inventory.
- Distinguish between areas already covered well enough, areas better handled by extending an existing instruction file, and areas that justify a new scoped instruction file.
- Treat missing guidance for meaningful uncovered areas as explicit findings when the wiki and repository evidence support them.
- Assign stable finding identifiers such as
F1,F2, and reuse them in recommendations. - For each recommended new instruction, specify the suggested file name, likely
applyToscope, purpose, and why the gap is not already covered adequately. - Write the final report to the next available
NNN-instruction-coverage-review.mdfile under./docs/unless the user explicitly requests overwrite behavior. - Stop after three failed attempts to resolve the same suspected gap and surface the blocker or uncertainty clearly.
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 · 111 lines · 35 tokens per session scan A 070b984d766a
Review Instruction Coverage is an agent published in the GitHub repository UKHO/UKHO.GitHubCopilot.ToolKit (1 stars, last pushed 2mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 35 tokens to every session and 1,047 once invoked, about $0.0002 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.
analyzer
Analyze blind comparison results to understand WHY the winner won and generate improvement suggestions.
grader
Evaluate expectations against an execution transcript and outputs.
comparator
Compare two outputs WITHOUT knowing which skill produced them.
.NET-Notebook-Migration-Agent
Expert .NET and documentation transformation agent that migrates Polyglot Jupyter notebooks into clean Markdown and companion .NET sample code.