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 jaktestowac/awesome-copilot-for-testers --skill scoping-change-relevancegit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/jaktestowac/awesome-copilot-for-testersWrote 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/jaktestowac/awesome-copilot-for-testers/scoping-change-relevance)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/jaktestowac/awesome-copilot-for-testers/scoping-change-relevance"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/jaktestowac/awesome-copilot-for-testers/scoping-change-relevance/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/jaktestowac/awesome-copilot-for-testers/scoping-change-relevance"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/jaktestowac/awesome-copilot-for-testers/scoping-change-relevance.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 | $0.00118 | $0.02389 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00059 | $0.01195 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00024 | $0.00478 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00012 | $0.00239 |
Grade A, and why
scoping-change-relevance 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 12d 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 — 147 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Scoping Change Relevance
Use this skill to decide, from the diff alone, which quality practices a specific change makes relevant - and to be able to defend the answer.
Running every check on every commit is slow, so teams stop gating on it. Running whatever the author felt like is fast and arbitrary. The middle path is a tag grammar: derive tags mechanically from the diff, map tags to practices with a fixed recipe table, and the scope becomes reproducible. Two people scoping the same diff should land on the same list.
When to Use
- a pre-push or PR gate needs to run a subset of checks, chosen defensibly
- a reviewer needs to know what this diff puts at risk before reading it
- a slow suite has made "run everything" politically impossible
- an agent needs a deterministic scope rather than a judgement call
- a change looks trivial and you want to check whether it actually is
Operating Principles
- Tags come from the diff, not from the author. "It's just a refactor" is a claim;
new-public-exportis evidence. - Added lines drive hunk tags. Read
+lines. Removed lines matter for deletions of tests and guards, and nothing else here. - Relevance is a filter, not a discount. A practice out of scope is out of scope for this change; it does not become optional for the project.
- Any auth, secret, migration, or dependency signal wins. These escalate immediately. There is no "small auth change".
- Under-tagging is the expensive error. A false positive costs a check run. A false negative ships the defect. When a rule nearly matches, tag it.
- Deleted guards are changes. A removed test, a removed validation, a loosened type - those are risk-increasing edits, not neutral cleanup.
- Path is not proof. A file under
auth/is auth-relevant; a file elsewhere that verifies a token is too. Read the hunk.
Workflow
Phase 0: Pin the diff
git diff --name-status <base>...HEAD # three-dot: compares against the merge base
git diff <base>...HEAD -- <path> # per-file hunks
git log <base>..HEAD --oneline
What ships with it
3 files beside SKILL.md in the same directory: the scripts, references and assets a skill reads on demand. Not counted in the per-session cost; read them before you install if any of them is executable.
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.
- 12d ago First seen · 147 lines · 118 tokens per session scan A f6c5889bd8a5
scoping-change-relevance is a skill published in the GitHub repository jaktestowac/awesome-copilot-for-testers (113 stars, last pushed 16d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 118 tokens to every session and 2,389 once invoked, about $0.0006 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
gentle-ai-collab-perfect
Trigger: contributing to Gentleman-Programming/gentle-ai as an external collaborator. Strict issue-first workflow, honest PR bodies, contributor-vs-maintainer scope, chained-PR strategy, verification protocol, docstring coverage. Load whenever the active repo is Gentleman-Programming/gentle-ai and any part of the…
issue-creation
Trigger: issue creation, bug reports, feature requests, or issue approval. Create and triage GitHub issues from repository evidence.
sdd-tasks
Break an SDD change into implementation tasks. Trigger: orchestrator launches task planning for a change.
work-unit-commits
Plan commits as reviewable work units. Trigger: implementation, commit splitting, chained PRs, or keeping tests and docs with code.
cognitive-doc-design
Design docs that reduce cognitive load. Trigger: writing guides, READMEs, RFCs, onboarding, architecture, or review-facing docs.
systemic-issue-triage
Trigger: new issue, bug report, triage, backlog, issue flood, community report, root cause, dead-end, blocked user. Attack issues by root class, never one-by-one; fixes must shrink the system, not grow it.