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 skills add gosha70/code-copilot-team --skill provider-collaboration-protocolgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/gosha70/code-copilot-teamWrote 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/skills/gosha70/code-copilot-team/provider-collaboration-protocol)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/gosha70/code-copilot-team/provider-collaboration-protocol"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/gosha70/code-copilot-team/provider-collaboration-protocol/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/skills/gosha70/code-copilot-team/provider-collaboration-protocol"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/gosha70/code-copilot-team/provider-collaboration-protocol.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 | $0.00031 | $0.00951 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00012 | $0.00380 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00190 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00095 |
Grade A, and why
provider-collaboration-protocol 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 — 101 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Provider Collaboration Protocol
Rules governing cross-provider peer review in dual-copilot sessions.
Session Flags
Peer review is enabled per-session via launcher flags:
--peer-review [provider-name]— enable peer review; optional provider override.--peer-review-off— disable peer review.--peer-review-scope code|design|both— review scope (default:both).
Environment variables set by launcher:
CCT_PEER_REVIEW_ENABLED—trueorfalse.CCT_PEER_PROVIDER— explicit provider name or empty (use profile default).CCT_REVIEW_COMMITS— commit strategy:single,per-round, orsquash(default:squash).CCT_REVIEW_MAX_ROUNDS— max review rounds before breaker (default: 5).
Review Flow
Peer review is agent-driven via /review-submit, not triggered by stop hooks.
- Build agent completes work, commits, and runs
/review-submit. /review-submitinvokesreview-round-runner.shwhich spawns a reviewer LLM in a read-only sandbox.- Runner writes structured findings to
.cct/review/findings-round-N.jsonand returns a verdict. - On FAIL: agent addresses findings, commits fixes, and runs
/review-submitagain. - On PASS: runner writes
loop-summary.jsonand collaboration artifact. Agent proceeds to/phase-complete. - On BREAKER: runner writes
breaker-tripped.json. Agent stops. Human runs/review-decide.
The stop hook (peer-review-on-stop.sh) validates that loop-summary.json exists with PASS or approved bypass — it does not initiate review. Plan-phase sessions are exempt.
See review-loop.md for the full loop protocol, finding schema, and circuit breaker details.
Artifact Schema
Collaboration artifacts live under specs/<feature-id>/collaboration/.
Artifact types:
plan-consult.md— peer review of the plan phase.build-review.md— peer review of the build phase.
Frontmatter (aligned with SDD conventions)
---
feature_id: [feature-id]
date: [YYYY-MM-DD]
status: [draft | final]
phase: [plan | build]
mode: [consult | review]
subject_provider: [provider that did the work]
peer_provider: [provider that reviewed]
peer_profile: [profile name from providers.toml]
runner_fingerprint: [command template hash + provider version]
verdict: [PASS | FAIL | INCONCLUSIVE]
blocking_findings_open: [integer]
target_ref: [git ref]
---
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 · 101 lines · 31 tokens per session scan A 8048f2d7cf46
provider-collaboration-protocol is a skill published in the GitHub repository gosha70/code-copilot-team (7 stars, last pushed 17d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 31 tokens to every session and 951 once invoked, about $0.0001 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 2026-09-03.
Other skills, from other repositories
x-spec
A system-planning guide that turns a vague idea into a set of linked design documents. It defines goals, modules, interfaces, data, workflows, and ways to check the result.
x-audit-arch
A project-wide architecture review skill that checks whether code is placed in the right modules and whether important definitions have one reliable source.
x-multi-llm-align
A review process in which two sub-agents examine an API, data format, event schema, or workflow from their separate implementation perspectives. The user passes documents and feedback between them over multiple rounds.
pipeline-efficiency-benchmark
A repeatable benchmark for comparing different versions of a development pipeline. It runs the same public tasks in isolated workspaces and records scores, tokens, time, tool calls, and cost.
pipeline-eval-report
A project-level review and reporting process for checking what an agent or model produced during a pipeline run. It records quality scores, evidence, usage data such as tokens and time, and the stage where a failure began.
x-bug2rag
A knowledge-capture tool that turns reusable bug explanations into a local RAG collection, meaning a searchable store of text that an agent can retrieve later. It records the trigger, incorrect implementation, correct implementation, and observable difference.