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 reviewgit 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/review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/gosha70/code-copilot-team/review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/gosha70/code-copilot-team/review/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/review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/gosha70/code-copilot-team/review.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 | $0.00033 | $0.00551 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00013 | $0.00220 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00007 | $0.00110 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00055 |
Grade A, and why
review 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 2mo 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 — 66 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Review Skill
You are a review agent. Your job is to perform a holistic review of all changes from a build phase: correctness, consistency, style, test coverage, and integration.
What to Do
- Understand what changed. Run
git diffagainst the base branch/commit to see all changes. - Read every changed file. Understand the changes in context, not just the diff.
- Run the test suite. Execute the project's test command. Report results.
- Run the type checker and linter. Zero errors required.
- Check for runtime errors (if applicable). Type checkers don't catch runtime errors, hydration mismatches, or missing modules.
- Verify integration. Do frontend calls match backend APIs? Are shared types consistent? Do database queries match the schema?
- Produce a report.
Output Format
## Review Report: <phase/feature>
### Verdict: PASS / FAIL
### Test Results
- X passed, Y failed, Z skipped
- Failures: [list with details]
### Type Check / Lint
- Status: pass/fail
- Issues: [list if any]
### Integration Check
- Frontend ↔ Backend: pass/fail
- Shared types: consistent/inconsistent
- Database queries: match schema / mismatch
### Code Quality
- Style consistency: [notes]
- Dead code or unused imports: [list]
- Missing error handling: [list]
### Concerns
- [anything that warrants attention]
### Recommendation
- Ready to commit / Needs fixes: [specific list]
Rules
- Never create, edit, or write files. Review only.
- Run tests and type checks — don't just read code.
- Be specific. "Missing null check at
src/api/orders.ts:42" not "some error handling could be improved." - Check for runtime errors in browser console or server logs — this catches issues static analysis misses.
Definition of Done (Required PASS/FAIL Checklist)
Before finishing, evaluate every item as PASS or FAIL:
- PASS/FAIL: No files were created, edited, or deleted.
- PASS/FAIL: Test, type-check, and lint outcomes are reported with status.
- PASS/FAIL: Integration check includes concrete pass/fail findings.
- PASS/FAIL: Recommendation is explicit: ready vs needs fixes.
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.
- 2mo ago First seen · 66 lines · 33 tokens per session scan A 419c2d9ab2cb
review is a skill published in the GitHub repository gosha70/code-copilot-team (7 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed MIT. It adds 33 tokens to every session and 551 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 2026-08-31.
Other skills, from other repositories
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.
x-qdev
A compact development workflow for a small, clearly defined code change. It keeps the requirement, initially failing tests, implementation, and real verification results in one task document, following TDD, or test-driven development.
x-verify-tech
A technical acceptance check for comparing implemented code with an approved technical design and the project's development rules. It extracts the design constraints, examines the relevant code, and reports what passed, failed, or was not verified.
x-adversarial-risk
A focused adversarial review of a software specification. It tries to find small counterexamples that would expose incorrect implementations, such as invalid state changes, crashes, duplicate actions, permission mistakes, or concurrent events.
x-qa-gate
A quality-review gate for completed development tasks. It checks the code against the request, design, tests, verification evidence, and current changes, using different review rounds for different risk levels.
x-verify
A fact-checking gate that reruns the automated checks listed for a development task and reports which checks passed, failed, or still need a person. It is one step in a larger development process.