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 mir-am/skills-agents-ai-coding --skill gh-copilot-review-resolvegit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/mir-am/skills-agents-ai-codingWrote 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/mir-am/skills-agents-ai-coding/gh-copilot-review-resolve)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/mir-am/skills-agents-ai-coding/gh-copilot-review-resolve"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/mir-am/skills-agents-ai-coding/gh-copilot-review-resolve/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/mir-am/skills-agents-ai-coding/gh-copilot-review-resolve"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/mir-am/skills-agents-ai-coding/gh-copilot-review-resolve.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 | $0.00025 | $0.02961 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00013 | $0.01481 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00005 | $0.00592 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00296 |
Grade A, and why
gh-copilot-review-resolve 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 11d 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 — 395 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
What I do
- Accept a GitHub pull request URL or PR number
- Fetch PR review threads with GitHub GraphQL via
gh api graphql - Detect Copilot-authored review threads and separate unresolved ones
- Default to a cautious review-first flow: inspect first, resolve only explicitly selected threads
- Post a reply for each selected thread, then resolve it on GitHub
- Support two standard actions per thread:
addressedandignored - Return a compact action summary including thread ids, paths, and reply URLs when available
When to use me
Use this skill when:
- User has already handled some Copilot review comments and wants those threads resolved
- User wants to intentionally close selected Copilot suggestions as ignored with an explicit reply
- User wants a repeatable
gh+ GraphQL workflow for Copilot review-thread cleanup - User wants to act on Copilot review threads without touching human reviewer threads by default
Prerequisites
- GitHub CLI (
gh) must be installed and authenticated - If given only a PR number, the current repository must have a GitHub
originremote - The target PR must be accessible with the current GitHub credentials
- If
ghnot installed -> error:Error: GitHub CLI not found. Install: https://cli.github.com/ - If not authenticated -> error:
Error: Not authenticated with GitHub. Run: gh auth login
Input Handling
Accept either of these forms:
- Full GitHub PR URL
- Example:
https://github.com/owner/repo/pull/123
- Example:
- PR number
- Example:
123
- Example:
The user must also identify which Copilot threads to act on and how to handle each one.
Supported Per-Thread Actions
addressed- Use when the suggestion was implemented or otherwise handled in code or docs
- Default reply template:
Addressed in <commit> (<subject>).
ignored- Use when the suggestion is intentionally not being applied right now
- Default reply template:
Ignoring this suggestion for now.
Custom reply text is allowed per thread, but these two action labels should be the default language.
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.
- 11d ago First seen · 395 lines · 25 tokens per session scan A 3c875daf3dbb
gh-copilot-review-resolve is a skill published in the GitHub repository mir-am/skills-agents-ai-coding (2 stars, last pushed 4mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 25 tokens to every session and 2,961 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 2026-08-31.
Other skills, from other repositories
code-review
Reviews code diffs and files for security vulnerabilities (OWASP Top 10), error handling, complexity, naming conventions, and performance issues. Use when the user asks to review a PR, pull request, diff, merge request, or code changes.
ubiquitous-language
Use when evaluating the ubiquitous language in a codebase - produces a glossary of domain terms with references and commentary on inconsistencies, awkward names, or overlapping concepts.
coding
Use when five specialized coding agents (linter, perf, refactor, security, test) that enforce quality gates across the development lifecycle. From lint enforcement through performance profiling, refactoring, security auditing, and test coverage. Use when working with coding agents.
lavra-review
Perform exhaustive code reviews using multi-agent analysis and ultra-thinking.
lavra-eng-review
Engineering review -- parallel agents check architecture, simplicity, security, and performance.
swe-review
Review an SWE brief, research report, spec, delivery plan, execution state, implementation diff, branch, or pull request. Use for fresh-context, evidence-backed findings before the human chooses the next action.