标签：#Copilot

For the last few years, many enterprise AI conversations have started with the same question: “Where can we add an AI copilot?” It is an understandable starting point. Copilots are familiar. They sit inside existing tools, help users draft content, summarize information, search documents, write code, or answer questions. For teams experimenting with AI, they feel safe. But after 10 years of building mobile apps, web platforms, AI systems, internal tools, and enterprise-grade products, I have learned something that sounds simple but changes the whole strategy: The workflow is the product. Not the chatbot. Not the prompt box. Not the model. Not the dashboard. The workflow. Enterprise AI only becomes valuable when it changes how work actually moves across people, systems, approvals, decisions, and data. That is why companies now need to move beyond standalone copilots and toward AI workflow automation, enterprise AI agents, and agentic workflows that are designed around real operational outcomes. Copilots Help. Workflows Transform. An AI copilot is useful when a person needs assistance inside a task. It can draft an email, summarize a meeting, search policy documents, or help an engineer understand code. These are valuable use cases. But they usually improve a single moment of work, not the complete business process. A workflow, on the other hand, connects the full chain. For example, consider enterprise customer onboarding. A copilot may summarize the sales call. A workflow system can take that summary, extract requirements, identify missing information, create onboarding tasks, notify customer success, update the CRM, generate a kickoff plan, check billing setup, and flag delivery risks. That is a very different level of impact. AI Copilot AI Workflow Automation Assists one user Coordinates work across teams Responds when asked Triggers actions automatically Works inside a tool Connects multiple systems Improves productivity Improves operating performance Helps with

Explore how the GitHub Copilot agentic harness delivers strong results across multiple benchmarks and leading token efficiency, while maintaining flexibility to choose among more than 20 models. The post Evaluating performance and efficiency of the GitHub Copilot agentic harness across models and tasks appeared first on The GitHub Blog .

Hey all, we have a quick update for everyone who participated in the Github "Finish-Up-A-Thon"...

Explore how my day as a senior leader looks now that I use 40 automations to help, and learn more about some of my favorites. The post I automated my job (and it made me a better leader) appeared first on The GitHub Blog .

I wanted a chat agent that could pull security alerts from Sophos Central on demand. Type "get Sophos alerts" into a Copilot Studio chat, get back a readable answer. No dashboard, no manual API calls. It works now, end to end. Agent calls a Power Automate flow, the flow talks to the Sophos API, and the response comes back formatted in chat. This post is how I got there, including the bugs that ate most of my time. The shape of the thing Three pieces: A Copilot Studio agent that the user talks to A Power Automate flow that does the actual API work The Sophos Central API on the other end The agent does not call Sophos directly. It calls the flow, the flow handles auth and the request, and the result gets passed back to the agent to format. Keeping the API logic in the flow means the agent stays simple. The flow The flow is named Sophos - Get Alerts , living in a solution called Sophos Integration . Here is the structure: [Trigger: When Copilot Studio calls a flow] | [Init ClientId] - String (Sophos Client ID) [Init ClientSecret] - String (Sophos Client Secret) [Init TenantId] - String (your Sophos tenant ID) [Init ApiHost] - https://api-<region>.central.sophos.com | [HTTP Get Token] POST https://id.sophos.com/api/v2/oauth2/token Header: Content-Type: application/x-www-form-urlencoded Body: grant_type=client_credentials&client_id={ClientId}&client_secret={ClientSecret}&scope=token | [Parse Token] - extract access_token | [HTTP Get Alerts] GET {ApiHost}/common/v1/alerts Headers: Authorization: Bearer {access_token} X-Tenant-ID: {TenantId} Accept: application/json | [Return value(s) to PVA: AlertsResponse = body('HTTP_Get_Alerts')] Auth is OAuth client credentials. You request a token, then use it as a bearer token on the alerts call. The tenant ID goes in an X-Tenant-ID header, not the URL. Where the credentials live This is the part people will have opinions about, so let me be upfront. The Sophos client ID, secret, and tenant ID are stored as flow-scoped variables wit

As of June 1, 2026, all GitHub Copilot plans run on usage-based billing. Premium request units are gone. What replaced them is a token-metered currency called GitHub AI Credits: one credit equals one cent, and every model interaction converts into credits based on the input, output, and cached tokens it consumes, charged at each model's published rate. GitHub's framing is that Copilot outgrew its old pricing. A one-line completion and a multi-hour autonomous run used to cost the same, and once agentic use went mainstream, that flat rate stopped matching the compute behind it. Tying the price to tokens fixes the mismatch. If your Copilot use is mostly autocomplete, this barely registers. If you drive Copilot as an agent from the terminal, it changes which moves cost money. Here's the practical shape of it. Requests out, tokens in Old model: each interaction cost one premium request, scaled by a per-model multiplier, drawn from a monthly request allowance. New model: each interaction costs whatever its tokens cost on the model you picked. Every paid plan still ships with a monthly pool, now denominated in credits, with the option to set a budget for usage past it. Published figures put the included pool at 1,500 credits for Pro, 7,000 for Pro+, and 20,000 for Max, with pooled per-user allowances on Business and Enterprise. Worth knowing if you pay yearly: annual Pro and Pro+ subscribers stay on the request-based model until the term ends, and several model multipliers went up for them on June 1. An annual plan doesn't dodge the change. It postpones part of it while making the strong models eat more of the old allowance. Autocomplete is untouched Before anyone starts rationing, here's the part that didn't move. Inline completions and Next Edit Suggestions are still unlimited and still free. If your day is mostly tab-completion in the editor, your costs read identical to May. Nothing to monitor there. The meter lands on the rest: chat, and especially the agentic runs th

GitHub added a tiny field to the Copilot usage metrics API this week that is going to create a lot of very confident spreadsheets. Enterprise and organization admins can now see ai_credits_used in the user-level Copilot usage reports. One field. Per user. Available for single-day and 28-day reports. It is not the invoice, and GitHub is careful to say it is a consumption signal rather than a billed total. Still, the shape is obvious. Now AI usage can sit next to adoption, activity, team, department, cost center, and whatever else the company already exports into a dashboard. That is useful. It is also exactly how a tool metric becomes a management metric. And once that happens, the question is no longer "can we measure AI usage?" The question is "what weird behavior will this metric create?" every useful metric becomes a temptation I understand why this field exists. If a company is paying for Copilot, especially with usage-based pieces attached to more expensive models and premium features, it needs some way to understand consumption. Platform teams need budget signals. Engineering leaders need adoption signals. Procurement needs something more concrete than "people seem to like it." Finance will eventually ask why one org burns through credits much faster than another. That is normal. The problem starts when a consumption signal is treated as a productivity signal. High AI credit usage might mean a developer is doing valuable work with agent mode, code review, test generation, refactoring, or research. It might also mean the developer is stuck, repeatedly asking the model to solve the wrong problem, generating code that gets deleted, or using a heavyweight model where a small one would have been fine. Low AI credit usage might mean a developer does not need much help. It might mean the work is mostly design, review, debugging, incident response, mentoring, or architecture. It might mean the codebase is small and well understood. It might mean the developer is skept

Qubot, our internal Copilot-powered analytics agent, allows any GitHub employee to ask questions about our data in plain language. Here's what we learned as we built it. The post How we built an internal data analytics agent appeared first on The GitHub Blog .

How GitHub Copilot is making more of each session go toward useful work, so your credits go further. The post Getting more from each token: How Copilot improves context handling and model routing appeared first on The GitHub Blog .

GitHub has introduced the GitHub Copilot app, a desktop control centre for agent-native development that aims to keep engineers in charge while AI agents handle more coding work. Mario Rodriguez writes on the GitHub blog that the recent wave of coding agents has brought faster delivery but also "disjointed workflows, more context switching, and too much time spent reviewing agent-generated code". By Matt Saunders

Git worktrees have been around since 2015, but it wasn't until recently they became popular. Learn what they are, how to use them, and why you might. The post What are git worktrees, and why should I use them? appeared first on The GitHub Blog .

SearchLeak exploit shows why the industry's approach to LLM security fails over and over.

GitHub Copilot CLI for Beginners: Learn how to use slash commands to control your terminal AI agent. The post GitHub Copilot CLI for Beginners: Overview of common slash commands appeared first on The GitHub Blog .

From Confused to Confident: How I Finally Mastered GitHub Copilot in Every Situation I still remember the afternoon I rage-closed VS Code because Copilot kept suggesting the wrong function signatures — again . I had been treating it like a magic oracle, typing vague comments and expecting perfect code to rain down from the AI heavens. Spoiler: that's not how it works. After weeks of trial, error, and a few embarrassing pull request reviews, I cracked the code (pun intended). Here's everything I wish someone had told me about using GitHub Copilot accurately — across Chat , Plan , and Agent modes. 🧠 First, Understand What Copilot Actually Is Before diving into tips, let's reset expectations. GitHub Copilot is not a search engine. It's not Stack Overflow with a fancy UI. It's a context-aware AI assistant trained on massive amounts of code. That means: The quality of your output depends directly on the quality of your input . It works best when it has rich context — open files, good comments, clear naming. It can be wrong. Confidently wrong. Always review what it generates. With that mindset locked in, let's explore each mode. 💬 Copilot Chat: Your Pair Programmer in the Sidebar The first time I opened Copilot Chat, I typed: "fix my code." It stared back at me, basically confused. Of course it was — I hadn't told it which code, what was broken, or what I expected. Tips for Accurate Chat Usage 1. Be specific and contextual. Instead of: "Why isn't this working?" Try: "This useEffect hook in React runs on every render instead of only when userId changes. Here's the code: [paste snippet]. What's wrong?" The more context you give, the more surgical the answer. 2. Use slash commands to guide intent. Copilot Chat supports built-in commands that dramatically improve accuracy: /explain → Explains selected code in plain English /fix → Suggests a fix for a highlighted bug /tests → Generates unit tests for selected code /doc → Writes documentation for a function or class These aren'

Better orchestration, fewer handoffs, faster progress, without a single new knob. The post How we made GitHub Copilot CLI more selective about delegation appeared first on The GitHub Blog .

GitHub moved Copilot Chat's richer pull request experience to general availability this week — side-by-side chat with diffs, inline editing, and context-aware answers without leaving the review view. Previously in public preview, it is now live for all Copilot license holders. It is a real improvement for reviewing changes inside a single pull request. But it highlights a gap that per-PR AI tooling structurally cannot close: knowing what is open across the rest of your organisation. The Problem That Lives Outside the PR Most engineering teams don't work in one repository. They ship across services, libraries, and infrastructure — often with related PRs open in multiple repos simultaneously. A reviewer approving a payments service change without knowing that a dependent auth-service PR is still in draft is reviewing without full context. This is not a quality-of-feedback problem. It is a visibility problem. No amount of intelligence surfaced inside a PR tells you what is happening across your repositories. Gartner's 2026 assessment of AI coding agents makes the point clearly: the bottleneck has shifted from generating code to reviewing, securing, and governing it. Better per-PR AI raises the floor on feedback quality. The teams that pull ahead will be the ones who also solve the coordination layer — which PRs are open, which are stale, which are blocked on a dependency in another repo. What Changes With Better In-PR AI GitHub's GA release makes the review experience faster and less disruptive for individual PRs. That matters. But as per-PR intelligence becomes table stakes, the differentiator shifts toward cross-repo awareness: who is waiting for review, what related work is in flight, and where the actual bottlenecks in the delivery pipeline are. Engineering leaders should be watching PR age distribution and review load across all repositories — not just the ones that happen to be open in a browser tab right now. For teams already dealing with multi-repo sprawl, Cod

Install and configure LSP servers for GitHub Copilot CLI, replacing brute-force grep/decompile with real code intelligence. The post Give GitHub Copilot CLI real code intelligence with language servers appeared first on The GitHub Blog .

Custom agents let GitHub Copilot CLI understand your stack and team workflows, turning one-off terminal prompts into repeatable, reviewable processes. The post From one-off prompts to workflows: How to use custom agents in GitHub Copilot CLI appeared first on The GitHub Blog .

Hey all, we have a quick update for everyone who participated in the GitHub "Finish-Up-A-Thon"...

This is a submission for the GitHub Finish-Up-A-Thon Challenge What I Built SpendWise AI is a free tool that audits your AI tool spending (Cursor, Copilot, Claude, ChatGPT, Gemini, Windsurf) against verified vendor pricing and tells you exactly where you're overspending and what to do about it. I originally built this as a week-long assignment for a startup. The problem it solves is simple: founders and engineering managers pay for multiple AI tools but have no idea if they're getting ripped off. SpendWise gives them that answer in under a minute, no signup needed. The interesting part is that the core audit engine has zero AI in it. It runs 6 hardcoded rules against verified pricing data, so every recommendation is reproducible and verifiable. AI (Groq's Llama 3) only kicks in to write a friendly summary paragraph on top of the structured results. I made this choice because financial recommendations need to be deterministic. Same input, same output, every time. The stack is Next.js 16, TypeScript, Tailwind + shadcn/ui, Supabase for the database, Groq for AI summaries, Resend for emails, and Vitest for testing. Deployed on Vercel. Live app: spendwise-ai-test.vercel.app Source code: github.com/Karam-999/SpendWise-AI Demo The original audit tool: The comeback (re-audit on pricing change): You can try the Round 1 version live at spendwise-ai-test.vercel.app . Pick a tool like Cursor on Teams plan at $40/mo, run the audit, and see the full savings breakdown. The Round 2 features (pricing change detection, re-audit diff view) are on a separate branch and not merged to main yet, but the demo video above walks through the complete flow. The Comeback Story Where it was: The original version was basically a calculator. You fill in your AI tools, it shows you where you can save money, and that's it. If Cursor changed its pricing the next week, your audit was already stale and you'd never know about it. It worked fine as a one-time thing. It had the form, the audit engine, AI