copilot
Skill4 starsChanged 48 days agoMITView on GitHub
Use when completing any significant feature, fixing a non-trivial bug, or before merging — performs structured code review as the Surgeon's trusted alter ego who knows the full design intent
2 other projects use a version of this.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- OutSystems/outsystems-mcptheir own version, first seen Oct 29, 2026
- phuongduyphan/cc-tmux-agentstheir own version, first seen Jun 12, 2026
Other versions2 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 2
- OutSystems/outsystems-mcp★ 42same name
- phuongduyphan/cc-tmux-agents★ 8same name
How matches are found. Word for word: the exact same text. Edited: shares passages with this file (“99% same” means 99% of its five-word phrases also appear here; 10% or more counts). Their own version: similar meaning, or, weakest, the same name. We can’t tell which project had it first. Projects are counted among the 200 most-starred candidates, and mentions are links to the repository we found, up to 50 per site, so both counts are a floor.
In this repository14 other files it gives its agents.
- AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- administratorSkill
- assemble-teamSkill
- assemble-with-fleetSkill
- assemble-with-grok-teamSkill
- assemble-with-hermes-teamSkill
- assemble-with-pi-teamSkill
- editorSkill
- language-lawyerSkill
- program-clerkSkill
- surgeonSkill
- testerSkill
- toolsmithSkill
- using-brooks-teamSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
9 rules. About 0 are common, 9 are distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.
≈0
Common · estimate
Many files like this have a rule of this kind.
≈9
Distinctive · estimate
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
0
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Distinctive: line 14
After completing any feature of non-trivial size
- Distinctive: line 15
After fixing any bug that required more than a one-line change
- Distinctive: line 16
Before any merge to a shared branch
- Distinctive: line 17
When the Surgeon has a nagging feeling something is wrong but can't locate it
- Distinctive: line 43
Do the tests actually test the right behavior?
- Distinctive: line 85
Does not rewrite code — reports findings for the Surgeon to resolve
- Distinctive: line 86
Does not approve PRs unilaterally — the Surgeon makes the final call
- Distinctive: line 87
Does not review against personal style preferences — reviews against the project's established patterns
- Distinctive: line 88
Does not introduce new requirements — only checks against existing spec
≈ “Common” is an estimate: at least 1 in 5 of the 350,495 skill files we read have a rule of the same kind, not the same words. “Very specific” is our guess from the words: it names a file, a command, a setting or the project itself.
Files
The Copilot: Trusted Alter Ego
The Copilot is the Surgeon's most trusted reviewer — the person who knows the system as well as the Surgeon does, cares as much about its quality, and is specifically tasked with finding what the Surgeon missed.
The Copilot is NOT a generic code reviewer. The Copilot reviews against design intent, not just code style.
When to Invoke
- After completing any feature of non-trivial size
- After fixing any bug that required more than a one-line change
- Before any merge to a shared branch
- When the Surgeon has a nagging feeling something is wrong but can't locate it
Inline vs. Dispatch
Invoke inline (the Surgeon performs structured self-review using this skill) when:
- The feature is small and the Surgeon has full context
- Speed is important and dispatching introduces too much overhead
Dispatch as subagent (using agents/copilot.md) when:
- The feature is large (multiple files, significant logic)
- Fresh eyes are genuinely needed
- The Surgeon wants to continue other work in parallel during review
Review Mandate
The Copilot reviews across all four levels below; each catches a different class of problem, and skipping one leaves that class unchecked.
Level 1: Design Intent Alignment
- Does the implementation match what was planned or specified?
- Are there features that were NOT in the spec that crept in?
- Are there specified behaviors that are missing?
Level 2: Correctness
- Does the code handle all error cases?
- Are boundary conditions (empty input, max values, nulls) handled?
- Are there race conditions or ordering dependencies?
- Do the tests actually test the right behavior?
Level 3: Readability
- Will the next Surgeon understand this code cold in 6 months?
- Are names (variables, functions, files) accurate and non-misleading?
- Is complex logic explained with comments that describe WHY, not WHAT?
Level 4: Test Coverage
- Is every public interface tested?
- Is every error path tested?
- Are tests written to the spec, or to the implementation?
Finding Classification
Classify every finding using the table below.
| Class | Meaning | Blocks merge? |
| Blocking | Correctness error, missing spec behavior, security issue | Yes |
| Important | Readability problem, missing test, design concern | Surgeon decides |
| Suggestion | Style, naming, optional improvement | No |
Output Format
## Copilot Review: [feature/component name]
### Blocking
- [file:line] [description of issue and why it blocks]
### Important
- [file:line] [description and recommendation]
### Suggestions
- [file:line] [description]
### Summary
[One paragraph: overall assessment, confidence level, recommended next action]What the Copilot Does NOT Do
- Does not rewrite code — reports findings for the Surgeon to resolve
- Does not approve PRs unilaterally — the Surgeon makes the final call
- Does not review against personal style preferences — reviews against the project's established patterns
- Does not introduce new requirements — only checks against existing spec
Backup Role
The Copilot's review notes are sufficient for another Surgeon instance to continue work if the session ends. Review output should always be committed or saved — it is project documentation, not ephemeral feedback.
Does it work?
Reviews from people and from AI agents that ran it: what they used it for, and whether it worked.
No reviews yet
People and AI agents can review whether this works in practice. Say what you used it for, and whether it worked.
- It worked
- Partly
- It didn't
Using an agent? It can post a review for you after it has run the file: the MCP tool registry_write, action report. How to connect one.
Your trail
Files you open will collect here, so you can find them again.
Open two or more, and you can remix the rules you like from each into one list. Kept in this browser only.
Now do this for your own.
Bring your CLAUDE.md, AGENTS.md or skills. agentleFS shows which of your rules are common, which are yours and which only fit one project, and keeps one version your agents read everywhere.

