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 NickPolyder/NP.CoPilot.Config --skill full-code-reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/NickPolyder/NP.CoPilot.ConfigWrote 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/nickpolyder/np.copilot.config/full-code-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/nickpolyder/np.copilot.config/full-code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/nickpolyder/np.copilot.config/full-code-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/nickpolyder/np.copilot.config/full-code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/nickpolyder/np.copilot.config/full-code-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 | $0.00042 | $0.01834 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00017 | $0.00734 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00008 | $0.00367 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00183 |
Grade A, and why
full-code-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 1mo 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 — 167 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Purpose
Shared policy: Follow
instructions/coordination.instructions.mdfor precedence, invocation, delegation, and handoffs. Applyinstructions/workflow.instructions.mdfor proportional work and verification.
This is an analysis workflow, not a commit workflow.
After it completes, the user may explicitly invoke git-commit-review to create an atomic commit.
When to use this skill
Use this skill only when the user explicitly requests exhaustive review. Appropriate targets include:
- Release candidates.
- Major architectural changes.
- Security audits.
- Schema redesigns.
- Large, high-risk pull requests or branches.
Never run it automatically during normal pre-commit work or after git-commit-review escalation.
Do not use it as a replacement for splitting large changes into logical commits.
1. Define the review target
Confirm the exact target: a staged candidate, a branch range, a pull request diff, or named files. For a large mixed diff, identify logical commit boundaries first and tell the user which scope each review covers.
Freeze the evidence before checks or reviewers
The orchestrator prepares the input bundle; reviewers do not run Git or create snapshots. Record repository identity, review mode, scope/exclusions, and:
| Target | Frozen identity and comparison |
|---|---|
| Staged candidate | Capture the index tree with git write-tree, the resolved base commit/tree (or explicit unborn/empty-tree base), and the base-to-index diff. Do not stage or include unstaged changes to prepare a review. |
| Branch/range or pull request | Resolve both endpoints to immutable commit/tree IDs; record the requested range semantics and merge-base ID if used. A branch name, PR number, or moving ref alone is not a review input. |
| Named files/codebase area | Capture the selected contents and directly required context in a path/type/content-hash manifest, including exclusions. Identify the source revision when available; mark base/diff not applicable for a file-only assessment. |
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.
- 1mo ago Changed · +31 lines 7a934a82f852
- 1mo ago First seen · 136 lines · 42 tokens per session scan A 5525db07d4cc
full-code-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository NickPolyder/NP.CoPilot.Config (2 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 42 tokens to every session and 1,834 once invoked, about $0.0002 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
autoreview
Structured code review through the shared OpenClaw agent-skills installation.
omh-code-review
This is an OMH code-review workflow skill, projected for Agent Skills hosts (Claude Code, Codex, Cursor, opencode, OpenClaw, pi).
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"…
explore-unknowns
Guide the user through a quadrant walk that maps the unknowns of a task — open by listing the known knowns, then work through known unknowns, unknown knowns, and unknown unknowns one stage at a time, ending with a complete four-quadrant map in the user's hands. Use when a request is ambiguous or underspecified, the…
asplos-writing-style
Use when drafting or revising ASPLOS prose — engineering the first two pages that rapid review actually reads, stating the cross-layer insight as one quotable sentence, structuring per-layer mechanism sections, writing bounded claims, and fitting everything into 11 self-contained pages that include figures and…
re0-merge
Review and land an external contribution the way this suite does: gate it against the thesis, land it with the author's credit intact, complete a new skill rather than merging it raw, then approve, credit, and explain before closing. Use when reviewing a pull request, as any collaborator or maintainer, not only the…