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 LaStrada/claude --skill review-with-copilotgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/LaStrada/claudeWrote 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/lastrada/claude/review-with-copilot)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/lastrada/claude/review-with-copilot"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/lastrada/claude/review-with-copilot/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/lastrada/claude/review-with-copilot"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/lastrada/claude/review-with-copilot.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 | $0.00196 | $0.01484 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00098 | $0.00742 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00039 | $0.00297 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00020 | $0.00148 |
Grade A, and why
review-with-copilot 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 10d 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 — 97 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
review-with-copilot
Send a diff to GitHub's Copilot CLI for a second-opinion review, then relay findings.
Non-negotiable rules
- Confirm upload first. The diff is sent to GitHub Copilot's backend (same trust boundary as
gh, but it's still an upload). On the first call in a session, tell the user what will be sent (branch, file count, +X/-Y) and wait for confirmation. - Refuse on sensitive paths. If the diff contains
secrets.properties,.env,*.p12,*.keystore,GoogleService-Info.plist,google-services.json, or anything matching*secret*/*credential*/*token*— refuse and warn. Don't upload them even if the user says it's fine. - Relay, don't agree. Present as "Copilot says:" with a one-line triage (genuine / off / needs-verify) after. The user decides.
- Non-interactive only. Always pass
-p/--prompt. Non-interactive mode also requires--allow-all-tools(per the CLI's own help). Pair it with--deny-tool writeso Copilot can't modify files during a review. Never start an interactivecopilotsession — it blocks the Bash tool. - When the target is a PR, always include existing comments. Before sending the diff, fetch every PR comment via
gh— issue comments, review summaries (includingCHANGES_REQUESTED), and inline review comments — and (a) inline them as context in the prompt so Copilot doesn't repeat them, and (b) relay them back to the user verbatim using the standard finding format. See "PR-comment fetch" below. - No Kotlin lint auto-format in a review flow. User-specific preference; same rationale as the Gemini skill.
Default invocation
BRANCH=$(git rev-parse --abbrev-ref HEAD)
BASE=$(git remote show origin 2>/dev/null | awk '/HEAD branch/ {print $NF}') # usually main; dev for some repos
RANGE="$BASE..HEAD"
git diff --stat $RANGE
Tell the user: N files changed, +X/-Y lines. Branch <branch> vs <base>. OK to send to Copilot?
Once confirmed:
DIFF=$(git diff $RANGE)
copilot \
--model gpt-5 \
--allow-all-tools --deny-tool write \
--no-color --log-level error \
-p "You are doing a careful code review. Focus on:
- Correctness bugs and logic errors
- Race conditions or concurrency issues
- Silent failures / swallowed errors
- Missing edge cases
- API misuse
Do NOT comment on formatting/naming/comments unless something is actually wrong.
Be terse. 'bug:' for confident, 'might:' for speculative. Under 400 words.
## Diff
$DIFF"
What ships with it
4 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.
- 10d ago First seen · 97 lines · 196 tokens per session scan A 979006b70624
review-with-copilot is a skill published in the GitHub repository LaStrada/claude (2 stars, last pushed 2mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 196 tokens to every session and 1,484 once invoked, about $0.0010 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 skills, from other repositories
autoreview
Pre-commit/ship code review: Codex default; optional Claude or Pi.
omh-code-review
This is a Hermes-native code-review workflow skill.
revdiff-plan
Review the last Codex assistant message (plan, analysis, or proposal) with inline annotations in a TUI overlay. Extracts the most recent response from Codex rollout files and opens it in revdiff for review and annotation. Activates on "revdiff-plan", "review plan with revdiff", "annotate plan", "review last response"…
code-reviewer
Code review specialist focused on patterns, bugs, security, and performance.
full-repo-review
Comprehensive four-wave review of all repo source files, producing a prioritized issue backlog.
agent-teams-simplify-and-harden
Implementation + audit loop using parallel agent teams with structured simplify, harden, and document passes. Spawns implementation agents to do the work, then audit agents to find complexity, security gaps, and spec deviations, then loops until code compiles cleanly, all tests pass, and auditors find zero issues or…