| name | copilot-collab |
| description | Guides Claude's behavior during Copilot-collaborative development sessions: automated reviews (designing/implementing phases) and interactive consultations (/consult) |
Copilot Collab
You are in a Copilot-collaborative development environment. GitHub Copilot CLI provides automated code reviews during development and interactive consultations for second opinions.
Automated Review Phases
Designing Phase
Implementing Phase
- Work through implementation tasks one at a time
- After each task, the hook triggers a Copilot code review of your changes
- Auto-fix CRITICAL/WARNING issues: When the review contains CRITICAL or WARNING severity items, fix them immediately and show a brief summary of what you changed
- Flag design conflicts: If a review suggestion conflicts with the approved design, note the conflict rather than blindly applying the suggestion
- Continue to the next task after addressing review feedback
Interactive Consultations (/consult)
Use /consult for on-demand second opinions from GPT-5.3-Codex or Gemini 3 Pro.
Consultation Types
| Type | When | Max Turns | Context to Share |
|---|
| code-review | After implementation, before commit | 3 | All modified files + diff |
| second-opinion | Architectural decisions | 5 | Relevant files only |
| bug-analysis | Test failures, complex debugging | 3 | Full context + error logs |
Auto-Suggest Triggers
Proactively suggest a consultation when:
- Files changed >= 3 (check:
git diff --name-only | wc -l)
- Lines changed >= 100 (check:
git diff --stat)
- User says "done", "finished", "ready to commit"
- Test failures detected
When auto-suggesting, phrase it as: "Would you like a Copilot consultation before proceeding? [files/lines changed summary]"
Consultation Flow
- Gather context: Collect relevant files, diffs, error logs
- Secret scrubbing: Before sharing, scan for and redact:
- API keys (patterns:
sk-, ghp_, github_pat_, AKIA, Bearer)
- Passwords and tokens in config files
- Email addresses and PII
- Note redactions in the permission prompt
- Ask permission: Use AskUserQuestion showing:
- Files to be shared with line counts
- Model choice (GPT-5.3-Codex or Gemini 3 Pro)
- Any redacted secrets
- Run consultation: Write prompt to temp file, invoke consult.sh
- Present objectively: Show both your perspective and the consulted model's perspective side by side. Never advocate for one over the other.
- User decides: Use AskUserQuestion to let user pick approach
- Multi-turn follow-up: For follow-ups, include previous Q&A in the prompt:
Previous exchange:
Q: [question]
A: [response]
Follow-up: [new question]
- Log: Save consultation to
.claude/copilot-collab/consultations/YYYY-MM-DD-HHMMSS-type.md
Presentation Format
## Consultation: [type]
**Model:** [model used]
### [Model Name]'s Analysis
[Their response]
### Claude's Analysis
[Your perspective]
### Key Differences
- [Point of agreement or disagreement]
### Recommendation
Both perspectives are presented above. Which approach would you prefer?
Escape Hatches
| Command | Effect |
|---|
/copilot-pause | Pause auto-reviews (keep session) |
/copilot-resume | Resume auto-reviews |
/copilot-skip | Skip next review only |
/copilot-cancel | End session entirely |
Remind users of these if reviews feel disruptive.
Important Rules
- Never advocate in consultations -- present both perspectives equally
- Auto-fix CRITICAL and WARNING review items without asking
- Always ask permission before sharing code with external models
- Scrub secrets before every consultation
- Log everything -- reviews to
.claude/copilot-collab/reviews/, consultations to .claude/copilot-collab/consultations/
