SKILLEMALL.ai
GitHub ↗ RU Sign in

BC suggest-awesome-github-copilot-agents

Suggest relevant GitHub Copilot Custom Agents files from the awesome-copilot repository based on current repository context and chat history, avoiding duplicates with existing custom agents in this repository, and identifying outdated agents that need updates.

github/awesome-copilot Agent Skills author: github MIT 1 file body ≈ 1 897 tokens Open the sourcegithub.com↗ analyzed 29 h ago

Suggest relevant GitHub Copilot Custom Agents files from the awesome-copilot repository based on current repository context and chat history, avoiding…

As a process C 57/100 · Has gaps — weak spots: when it triggers, failures and branches, running it twice

ProcedureGitHubAI 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
B
88/100
safety, quality, tests
Safety 60%
100
Quality 40%
71
Run on models
none yet
Process rating
C
57/100
Has gaps
Failures and branches w 10
0
Progress reporting w 2
0
When it triggers w 12
20
the three weakest of ten parameters · all ten

The same skill appears in 1 more place: RA-Skills

How to improve

  1. Say in the description WHEN to use the skill ("use when…", example requests): that is the agent's main cue.
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: 1. Evidence is masked. Grey chips explain why severity was lowered.

Against the Agent Skills spec

  • warning description-no-when description does not say WHEN to use the skill (no "use when")

Process rating: all ten parameters 57/100

  • 0Failures and branches. Linear process with no failure handling
  • 0Progress reporting. Says nothing while it works
  • 20When it triggers. No condition that starts the skill
  • 30Running it twice. 2 mutating operations with no state check
  • 60Tools and files. Uses tools (web) that frontmatter does not declare
  • 60Result and completion. Output format stated, no completion criterion
  • 70Inputs and preconditions. Inputs and preconditions are listed
  • 85Steps. 55 steps, 2 vague phrases
  • 100Consistency. Name and required fields are in place
  • 100Execution cost. Instruction body is 1897 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

  • +5Description has no quoted example phrases that should trigger the skill
  • +4Description does not say when NOT to use the skill (false activations)
  • +4No input/output examples
  • +1No license
  • +2Single-language instructions
  • +3Description length 260: enough signal without eating the budget
  • +4Structure: 9 headings
  • +3Step-by-step instructions: 55 items
  • +3Output format is stated explicitly

Quality base 70; lint remarks subtract, signals add up to 100. Result: 71.