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 RobinNorberg/oh-my-copilot --skill omc-ado-reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/RobinNorberg/oh-my-copilotWrote 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/robinnorberg/oh-my-copilot/omc-ado-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/robinnorberg/oh-my-copilot/omc-ado-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/robinnorberg/oh-my-copilot/omc-ado-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/robinnorberg/oh-my-copilot/omc-ado-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/robinnorberg/oh-my-copilot/omc-ado-review.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 | $0.00061 | $0.02692 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00024 | $0.01077 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00012 | $0.00538 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00269 |
Grade A, and why
omc-ado-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 14d 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 — 388 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
OMC ADO Review
Perform a full Azure DevOps pull request review cycle. Reads .omg/config.json for connection settings, lists open PRs, surfaces existing review threads, and supports adding comments, managing reviewers, and updating PR status.
When this skill is invoked, immediately execute the workflow below. Do not only restate or summarize these instructions back to the user.
Trigger Patterns
- "ado review"
- "review pr"
- "review pull request"
- "add reviewer"
- "pr comments"
- "vote on pr"
- "manage pr threads"
- "omc-ado-review"
Step 1: Load Configuration
Read .omg/config.json:
node -e "const f=require('fs');try{process.stdout.write(f.readFileSync('.omg/config.json','utf8'))}catch{console.log('NOT_FOUND')}"
Extract from the ado key:
org— full org URL (e.g.https://dev.azure.com/contoso)project— ADO project namerepo— repository name
If config is NOT_FOUND or missing the ado key: tell the user to run /oh-my-copilot:omc-ado-setup first and stop.
Step 2: List Open PRs
Fetch all active pull requests for the configured repository.
MCP (preferred):
mcp__azure-devops__repo_list_pull_requests_by_repo_or_project
→ repositoryId: "{repo}"
→ project: "{project}"
→ status: "active"
az CLI fallback:
az repos pr list \
--repository "{repo}" \
--project "{project}" \
--org "{org}" \
--status active \
-o json 2>&1
Present results in a table:
### Open Pull Requests ({N})
| ID | Title | Author | Target Branch | Reviewers | Age |
|----|-------|--------|--------------|-----------|-----|
| !42 | Add retry logic | alice | main | 2 of 3 approved | 3d |
| !43 | Fix login timeout | bob | dev | No votes yet | 1d |
For each PR, summarize reviewer vote status:
-10= Rejected-5= Waiting for author0= No vote5= Approved with suggestions10= Approved
If there are no open PRs, report "(0)" and ask the user if they want to check a specific PR by ID.
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.
- 14d ago Changed · -3 lines · -30 tokens per session 8353b8cb4ca2
- 1mo ago First seen · 391 lines · 91 tokens per session scan A 6aa03b0dc938
omc-ado-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository RobinNorberg/oh-my-copilot (5 stars, last pushed 2d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 61 tokens to every session and 2,692 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 2026-09-04.
Other skills, from other repositories
resolve-pr-feedback
Use when asked to resolve, address, fix, or reply to review feedback on a GitHub Pull Request or GitLab Merge Request, including review comments, unresolved threads, requested changes, or "apply the review comments" requests.
review-pr
Use when asked to review a GitHub Pull Request or GitLab Merge Request, including PR/MR URLs, identifiers, discussions, findings, inline comments, approvals, or request-changes actions.
review-architecture
Read-only architecture and design-quality review of an existing codebase. Finds hot spots from git churn, file growth, complexity and files that change together, then checks them against layering, dependency direction, cohesion, SOLID, simplicity, test safety and platform-support rules (runtime and framework end of…
code-review
Reusable review core for structured findings on supplied code or diffs. Invoked by review-pr and review-local; not for reviewing a PR/MR or local working tree directly, use those skills instead.
review-and-resolve-pr
Use when asked to review a GitHub Pull Request or GitLab Merge Request and act on the result in one autonomous pass, including "review and fix this PR", "review this MR and resolve the feedback", "close the review loop on this PR", or any request that pairs reviewing a PR/MR with applying the findings. Reviews the…
review-local
Use when reviewing local code before committing and the user wants findings for a file, folder, uncommitted changes, staged changes, commits, patches, or snippets without involving a pull request or merge request.