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 git-commit-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/git-commit-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/nickpolyder/np.copilot.config/git-commit-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/nickpolyder/np.copilot.config/git-commit-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/git-commit-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/nickpolyder/np.copilot.config/git-commit-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 | $0.00039 | $0.03792 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00016 | $0.01517 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00008 | $0.00758 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00379 |
Grade A, and why
git-commit-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 — 245 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;instructions/workflow.instructions.mdfor proportional verification; andinstructions/git-conventions.instructions.mdfor delivery and commit safety.
This is the default pre-commit workflow. It is intentionally bounded to approximately ten minutes of reviewer time.
Use full-code-review only when the user explicitly requests exhaustive analysis.
Recommendations for full-code-review or security-audit are separate handoffs after this owning workflow ends, never nested invocations.
Never mark a blocked workflow complete merely to start another workflow.
When to use this skill
Use this skill when a logical change is ready to commit.
Do not use it for:
- A user-requested full review, release candidate, major architectural change, security audit, or schema redesign; recommend
full-code-review. - A trivial change when the user explicitly chooses to skip review.
- An empty index.
1. Split atomic candidates and stage one
Inspect the worktree and divide it into logical, atomic commit candidates before adding reviewers.
- Keep one feature, fix, refactor, configuration change, or documentation concern in each candidate.
- Keep tests with the behavior they cover.
- Do not compensate for a large mixed diff by adding reviewers.
- Stage exactly one candidate with partial staging where necessary.
- Confirm the index contains no unrelated files or hunks.
If a candidate is not self-contained, split it before continuing. Do not review unstaged changes or a mixture of candidates.
2. Materialize the clean index snapshot
Review the index, not the mutable worktree.
- Require a non-empty index diff against the recorded base: HEAD, or the empty tree for an unborn branch.
- Resolve
$snapshotHelpertoscripts\GitSnapshot.psm1in this configuration's source repository, not the target project. The whole-repository installation provides it; do not assume a standalone copied skill includes it. If unavailable, stop and report the missing capability rather than inventing an archive fallback. - Run the shared executable procedure below with
$repositoryRootidentifying the target worktree root.New-GitReviewCandidateusesgit write-treeonly on a disposable index copy; it records the exact candidate tree, base identity, ordered parent list, unborn/detached/symbolic ref state, and destination ref. The snapshot and isolated child home are outside the target repository.
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 · +27 lines 8fc18d8242ea
- 1mo ago First seen · 218 lines · 39 tokens per session scan A edaf4731b4e8
git-commit-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository NickPolyder/NP.CoPilot.Config (2 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 39 tokens to every session and 3,792 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
review-implement-phase
Implements triaged review actions, commits focused fixes, and posts Done plus resolves threads. Use when the user wants only the implementation phase of the review-framework workflow.
github-pr-workflow
Prepare a GitHub pull request from a feature branch — branch hygiene, commit shape, title/body, verification notes, screenshots for UI work, and replies to review comments.
review-delta
Review only changes since last commit using impact analysis. Token-efficient delta review with automatic blast-radius detection.
github-contributor
A step-by-step guide for contributing code, tests, documentation, or build changes to open-source projects you do not maintain. It explains how to prepare a pull request that follows the project’s rules and is easier for maintainers to review.
hero-diff-highlight
A dark code editor reveals a red deletion then a green addition with a soft pulse. Function: PR / code-change explainer.
git-pr-workflows-git-workflow
Guide changes through code checks, testing, commits, and pull request preparation. Use when coordinating a complete Git workflow and verifying readiness for collaboration.