SKILLEMALL.ai
GitHub ↗ RU Sign in

AC copilot-pr-autopilot

Copilot left 14 review comments on your PR — half are nits. Hours of fix → reply → resolve → re-request, and each round lands MORE comments. This skill runs loop engineering: auto-triggers Copilot Code Review via GraphQL (no @copilot mention), triages every open thread (Copilot, humans, advanced-security) with a fix / decline / escalate rubric, dispatches parallel fix sub-agents that obey the repo build/test/lint conventions, commits per iteration, replies+resolves citing the pushed SHA, then re-triggers until HEAD is reviewed with zero threads awaiting the agent's reply (remaining open threads are explicit hand-offs to the human — escalated declines, design tradeoffs). You merge a clean PR; the bot runs it. Trigger phrases: "address copilot comments", "run a copilot review loop", "fix this PR", "iterate on copilot feedback". Repo-agnostic, gh CLI + PowerShell. Full autopilot needs repo Triage/Write; external PR authors get single-iteration mode plus manual re-trigger (UI 🔄 or substantive-commit push).

github/awesome-copilot Agent Skills author: github MIT 24 files · 7 scripts body ≈ 3 169 tokens Open the sourcegithub.com↗ analyzed 32 h ago

Copilot left 14 review comments on your PR — half are nits.

As a process C 54/100 · Has gaps — weak spots: result and completion, when it triggers, running it twice

AnalyzerGitHubAI and agentsSoftware developmenttype and topics are labelled automatically from the skill text
Runs in: GitHub Copilot / VS Code Claude / Claude Code ChatGPT / Codex Gemini CLI Cursor Qwen Code Kimi Code CLI Z.ai (GLM) DeepSeek (Deep Code) Mistral Vibe LangChain (deepagents) OpenClaw Goose OpenCode
JSON
Technical rating
A
93/100
safety, quality, tests
Safety 60%
100
Quality 40%
83
Run on models
none yet
Process rating
C
54/100
Has gaps
Result and completion w 14
0
Progress reporting w 2
0
When it triggers w 12
20
the three weakest of ten parameters · all ten

How to improve

    For the model run — optional
    • Your own cases (evals/evals.json, 4–6 real requests with expected answers): the full check would then run those instead of a model-drafted suite.
    • A spec.yaml with trigger phrases and assertions — a behaviour contract for CI; `skilltest init` writes a template.

    Guard findings · 0

    ✓ No critical or high findings

    Files scanned: 24. Evidence is masked. Grey chips explain why severity was lowered.

    Against the Agent Skills spec

    ✓ No remarks against the Agent Skills spec

    Process rating: all ten parameters 54/100

    • 0Result and completion. Does not say what the result is
    • 0Progress reporting. Says nothing while it works
    • 20When it triggers. No condition that starts the skill
    • 30Running it twice. 29 mutating operations with no state check
    • 50Failures and branches. 0 branches, has a failure section
    • 60Tools and files. Uses tools (bash) that frontmatter does not declare
    • 70Inputs and preconditions. Inputs and preconditions are listed
    • 85Steps. 37 steps, 2 vague phrases
    • 100Consistency. Name and required fields are in place
    • 100Execution cost. Instruction body is 3169 tokens

    Everything here is measured from the skill text rather than judged by a model, so the numbers are checkable. A parameter weighs more when it is a more common reason for the process to stall.

    Quality signals

    • +4Description does not say when NOT to use the skill (false activations)
    • +3Description length 1018: 120–800 characters recommended
    • +3Output format is not stated: the model decides each time
    • +4No input/output examples
    • -31 of 7 scripts are never mentioned in SKILL.md
    • +1No license
    • +2Single-language instructions
    • +5Description quotes 4 example trigger phrases
    • +4Structure: 9 headings
    • +3Step-by-step instructions: 37 items
    • +4Reference files are cited in the instructions (12 of 12)

    Quality base 70; lint remarks subtract, signals add up to 100. Result: 83.