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 Robotti-io/copilot-security-instructions --skill secure-code-reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/Robotti-io/copilot-security-instructionsWrote 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/robotti-io/copilot-security-instructions/secure-code-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/robotti-io/copilot-security-instructions/secure-code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/robotti-io/copilot-security-instructions/secure-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/robotti-io/copilot-security-instructions/secure-code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/robotti-io/copilot-security-instructions/secure-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 | $0.00021 | $0.00506 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00008 | $0.00202 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00101 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00051 |
Grade A, and why
secure-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 — 69 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Secure Code Review
When to use
Use this skill when asked to review code for security, produce findings, or prepare guidance for remediation.
Inputs to collect (if available)
- What component(s) are in scope (API, UI, worker, infra scripts)
- Data sensitivity (PII, auth/session, payments)
- Deployment assumptions (internet-facing, internal, multi-tenant)
- Any known incidents, CVEs, or audit requirements
Step-by-step process
- Map entry points & trust boundaries
- Enumerate request handlers, background consumers, file parsers, template renderers, and admin endpoints.
- Identify where untrusted input crosses into privileged actions or sensitive sinks.
- Scan for high-risk classes
- Injection: SQL/NoSQL/LDAP/OS/template
- Authn/authz: missing checks, insecure defaults, confused deputy
- Deserialization & file handling: unsafe loads, path traversal, upload
- Crypto: homegrown crypto, weak randomness, token validation mistakes
- Logging: secrets/PII exposure, overly verbose errors
- SSRF: URL fetchers, webhook validation gaps
- Deep-dive the highest impact areas
- Trace data flow from input → validation → authorization → sink.
- Look for missing allow-lists, type confusion, and implicit conversions.
- Write findings in a consistent format
- Title, severity, confidence
- Where (file/function)
- Risk + prerequisites
- Repro steps
- Recommendation + verification steps
- Close with a remediation plan
- Quick wins (hours), medium fixes (days), structural guardrails (weeks).
Output template
Summary
- Scope reviewed:
- Top issues:
- Overall risk: Low / Medium / High / Critical
Findings (repeat)
- Title
- Severity / Confidence
- Where
- Risk
- Repro
- Recommendation
- Verification
Repo integration (optional)
If this repo includes prompt files under /prompts, the following are commonly relevant:
secure-code-review.prompt.mdscan-for-insecure-apis.prompt.mdvalidate-input-handling.prompt.mdreview-auth-flows.prompt.md
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 First seen · 69 lines · 21 tokens per session scan A d25935894805
secure-code-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository Robotti-io/copilot-security-instructions (42 stars, last pushed 5mo ago), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 21 tokens to every session and 506 once invoked, about $0.0001 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 2026-08-30.
Other skills, from other repositories
code-review
Review pull requests for repository fit, meaningful value, trustworthy provenance, differentiation, and maintainability in awesome-copilot.
mcp-server-review
Review a Model Context Protocol (MCP) server implementation against the 2026-07-28 protocol revision, which removed the initialize handshake and Mcp-Session-Id and made the protocol stateless. Use when the user asks to review, audit, upgrade or migrate an MCP server, asks whether their MCP server is spec compliant…
code-review-csharp
Perform structured code reviews of C# source code covering naming conventions, performance, security, readability, and .NET best practices. Trigger phrases include "review this C# code", "check my C# for best practices", "analyze this C# class", "find issues in my C# code".
audit
Audits recent work against its Definition of Done and project patterns. Runs the test suite, compares code against the spec, and reports PASS / PARTIAL / FAIL. Also runs the Critical Gate — a safety scan of the diff for destructive or dangerous operations. Generates an incremental prompt pack for any gaps found. With…
fortify-change-review
Lightweight, AI-powered security review of code CHANGES (a diff, PR, or in-session edits) using the agent's own analysis — no Fortify scan engine or platform needed. Use when the user asks to "run a Fortify security review" / "Fortify change review", or when adding/modifying code touching authentication…
pr-review-response
Teaches agents to reply to PR review comment threads after fixing issues, making resolutions traceable.