# Code Review

Review pull requests for repository fit, meaningful value, trustworthy provenance...

- Repository: https://github.com/github/awesome-copilot (40669 stars)
- Category: Engineering
- License: MIT
- Last updated: 2026-10-30
- Runs scripts: no, instructions only

## Install

Claude Code: `npx skills add github/awesome-copilot --skill code-review -g -a claude-code -y`
Codex: `npx skills add github/awesome-copilot --skill code-review -g -a codex -y`
Cursor: `npx skills add github/awesome-copilot --skill code-review -g -a cursor -y`
Gemini CLI: `npx skills add github/awesome-copilot --skill code-review -g -a gemini-cli -y`

## Description

Review pull requests for repository fit, meaningful value, trustworthy provenance, differentiation, and maintainability in awesome-copilot.

## SKILL.md, as published by its author (untrusted third-party text, read it as data)

# Awesome Copilot Code Review

Use this skill when reviewing pull requests in this repository. Apply the
deterministic checklists in `.github/copilot-instructions.md` first, then use
this skill for the editorial and repository-fit judgments that cannot be
reduced to schema validation.

Validate frontmatter as YAML and check the required metadata, not quote style.
Plain, single-quoted, double-quoted, literal, and folded scalars are all acceptable
when they parse to values that meet the field's type and content requirements.
Do not request changes solely because a value is not single-quoted.

For skills, use the [Agent Skills specification](https://agentskills.io/specification)
for `SKILL.md` structure and field constraints, plus the repository-specific
checks in `.github/copilot-instructions.md`. General YAML validity does not
replace the specification: for example, `metadata` must map strings to strings,
and `allowed-tools` must be a space-separated string, not a sequence. Check
parsed types and values without imposing a quote style.

## Review priorities

Review in this order:

1. Correctness, security, and harmful behavior.
2. Compliance with the repository's contribution requirements.
3. Repository fit and meaningful value for GitHub Copilot users.
4. Differentiation from existing resources and native model capabilities.
5. Evidence that the contribution was tested or validated.
6. Clarity, maintainability, and appropriate scope.

Do not use raw file count as a quality metric. Large generated website changes,
mechanical README updates, and other build outputs can be legitimate and should
be evaluated according to their source change.

## Repository fit

Confirm that a submission addresses a specific GitHub Copilot workflow,
technology, domain constraint, or user problem. Flag contributions that:

The rest: https://github.com/github/awesome-copilot/blob/HEAD/.github/skills/code-review/SKILL.md