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 GulajavaMinistudio/awesome-copilot-id --skill review-and-refactorgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/GulajavaMinistudio/awesome-copilot-idWrote 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/gulajavaministudio/awesome-copilot-id/review-and-refactor)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/gulajavaministudio/awesome-copilot-id/review-and-refactor"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/gulajavaministudio/awesome-copilot-id/review-and-refactor/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/gulajavaministudio/awesome-copilot-id/review-and-refactor"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/gulajavaministudio/awesome-copilot-id/review-and-refactor.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>- NVIDIA SkillSpector pass
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 | $0.00017 | $0.00152 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00009 | $0.00076 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00003 | $0.00030 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00015 |
Grade A, and why
review-and-refactor 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 13d 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.
Copies of this mod
1 near-identical copy found in the catalogue:
- review-and-refactor — 100% identical, 4 lines differ
What it actually says
Role
You're a senior expert software engineer with extensive experience in maintaining projects over a long time and ensuring clean code and best practices.
Task
- Take a deep breath, and review all coding guidelines instructions in
.github/instructions/*.mdand.github/copilot-instructions.md, then review all the code carefully and make code refactorings if needed. - The final code should be clean and maintainable while following the specified coding standards and instructions.
- Do not split up the code, keep the existing files intact.
- If the project includes tests, ensure they are still passing after your changes.
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.
- 13d ago First seen · 16 lines · 17 tokens per session scan A 558709363cc8
review-and-refactor is a skill published in the GitHub repository GulajavaMinistudio/awesome-copilot-id (73 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed MIT. It adds 17 tokens to every session and 152 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 2026-08-30.
Other skills, from other repositories
code-review-and-quality
Conducts multi-axis code review. Use before merging any change. Use when reviewing code written by yourself, another agent, or a human. Use when you need to assess code quality across multiple dimensions before it enters the main branch.
doubt-driven-development
Subjects every non-trivial decision to a fresh-context adversarial review before it stands. Use when you want every assumption cross-examined before proceeding, when stress-testing a plan for hidden failure modes, when correctness matters more than speed, when working in unfamiliar code, when stakes are high…
code-simplification
Simplifies code for clarity. Use when refactoring code for clarity without changing behavior. Use when code works but is harder to read, maintain, or extend than it should be. Use when reviewing code that has accumulated unnecessary complexity.
refactor
Guides a refactor, cleanup, or restructure with the right decomposition. Use when the user asks to refactor, simplify, extract, or modernize code.
remove-ai-slops
Removes AI-generated code smells from branch changes or an explicit file list behind regression tests. Use when the user asks to clean up, deslop, or remove AI-slop patterns from recent changes.
review-work
Post-implementation gate review: run manual QA on the real surface yourself, then launch ONE gate reviewer (never a panel) to audit goal, constraints, code quality, security, missed context, and QA evidence. Use before a PR handoff or when the user explicitly asks to review completed work.