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 wagnersza/copilot-plugin-cc --skill copilot-result-handlinggit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/wagnersza/copilot-plugin-ccWrote 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/wagnersza/copilot-plugin-cc/copilot-result-handling)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/wagnersza/copilot-plugin-cc/copilot-result-handling"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/wagnersza/copilot-plugin-cc/copilot-result-handling.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" 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 | $0.00018 | $0.00396 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00009 | $0.00198 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00004 | $0.00079 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00040 |
Grade A, and why
copilot-result-handling 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 8d 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.
This is a copy
83% identical to codex-result-handling — 21 lines differ, which has more behind it and is treated as the original. This page carries a canonical link to it rather than competing with it.
What it actually says
Copilot Result Handling
When the helper returns Copilot output:
- Preserve the helper's verdict, summary, findings, and next steps structure.
- For review output, present findings first and keep them ordered by severity.
- Use the file paths and line numbers exactly as the helper reports them.
- Preserve evidence boundaries. If Copilot marked something as an inference, uncertainty, or follow-up question, keep that distinction.
- Preserve output sections when the prompt asked for them, such as observed facts, inferences, open questions, touched files, or next steps.
- If there are no findings, say that explicitly and keep the residual-risk note brief.
- If Copilot made edits, say so explicitly and list the touched files when the helper provides them.
- For
copilot:copilot-rescue, do not turn a failed or incomplete Copilot run into a Claude-side implementation attempt. Report the failure and stop. - For
copilot:copilot-rescue, if Copilot was never successfully invoked, do not generate a substitute answer at all. - CRITICAL: After presenting review findings, STOP. Do not make any code changes. Do not fix any issues. You MUST explicitly ask the user which issues, if any, they want fixed before touching a single file. Auto-applying fixes from a review is strictly forbidden, even if the fix is obvious.
- If the helper reports malformed output or a failed Copilot run, include the most actionable stderr lines and stop there instead of guessing.
- If the helper reports that setup or authentication is required, direct the user to
/copilot:setupand do not improvise alternate auth flows. - After presenting review findings, do not proceed to
/copilot:reviewor/copilot:statuswithout explicit user direction.
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.
- 8d ago First seen · 23 lines · 18 tokens per session scan A f2677da486c5
copilot-result-handling is a skill published in the GitHub repository wagnersza/copilot-plugin-cc (45 stars, last pushed 5mo ago), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 18 tokens to every session and 396 once invoked, about $0.0001 per session on Opus 5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 83% identical to codex-result-handling, differing in 21 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other skills, from other repositories
autoreview
Pre-commit/ship code review: Codex default; optional Claude or Pi.
rework-rate
Measure and interpret PR rework rate — the emerging 5th DORA metric.
omh-code-review
This is a Hermes-native code-review workflow skill.
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"…
code-reviewer
Code review specialist focused on patterns, bugs, security, and performance.
agent-teams-simplify-and-harden
Implementation + audit loop using parallel agent teams with structured simplify, harden, and document passes. Spawns implementation agents to do the work, then audit agents to find complexity, security gaps, and spec deviations, then loops until code compiles cleanly, all tests pass, and auditors find zero issues or…