[restocked]

Pull Request Checklist

• I have read and followed the CONTRIBUTING.md guidelines.
• I have read and followed the Guidance for submissions involving paid services.
• My contribution adds a new instruction, prompt, agent, skill, workflow, or canvas extension file in the correct directory.
• The file follows the required naming convention.
• The content is clearly structured and follows the example format.
• I have tested my instructions, prompt, agent, skill, workflow, or canvas extension with GitHub Copilot.
• I have run npm start and verified that README.md is up to date.
• I am targeting the main branch for this pull request.

---

Description

I added a tweetapi skill in skills/tweetapi/ and its row in docs/README.skills.md. It walks Copilot through reading public Twitter/X data with the hosted TweetAPI MCP server or a server-side REST call, and keeps it to read-only lookups, one page per call, so it never spends quota on its own. TweetAPI (https://tweetapi.com) is a paid API with 100 free units for new accounts. I work on TweetAPI.

---

Type of Contribution

• New instruction file.
• New prompt file.
• New agent file.
• New plugin.
• New skill file.
• New agentic workflow.
• New canvas extension.
• Update to existing instruction, prompt, agent, plugin, skill, workflow, or canvas extension.
• Other (please specify):

---

Additional Notes

Checks run locally: npm run skill:validate and npm start (no further changes). Tested in VS Code agent mode with the hosted server: a docs lookup, a profile lookup, and a search that stopped after one page and returned the cursor.

---

By submitting this pull request, I confirm that my contribution abides by the Code of Conduct and will be licensed under the MIT License.

[github-actions]

🚦 Submission status: 👀 Ready for review

Risk tier: merge-risk:high — Privileged execution, automation, or review-policy change
Required to merge: passing submission-gate checks plus 1 approval from reviewers with write access, including a maintainer with admin or maintain permission.

Why this tier

• Label needs-review:HIGH flags a high contributor-risk signal

Automated checks

Check	Status	Details
Line endings	✅ Passed	Passed · logs
Spelling	✅ Passed	Passed · logs
Generated README consistency	✅ Passed	Passed · logs
Skill validation	✅ Passed	Passed · logs
Skill lint (vally)	✅ Passed	Passed · logs
Risk scan	✅ Passed	Passed · logs
Contributor reputation	✅ Passed	Passed · logs
Duplicate resource scan	✅ Passed	Passed · logs
PR quality signal	⏭️ Skipped	Skipped by its workflow · logs

Review

• Approvals: 0/1
• Assigned reviewer: not assigned yet — comment /request-review to ask for one
• Review target date: not set
• Still needed: 1 more approval(s); an approval from a maintainer with admin or maintain permission
• The core-maintainers pool is not staffed yet; an approver with admin or maintain permission is required instead.

Commands

Command	Who	What it does
/rerun-checks	PR author, maintainers	Re-runs failed or incomplete checks and re-evaluates this gate
/request-review	PR author, maintainers	Asks the review rotation to assign a reviewer (adds needs-reviewer)

_{Updated for d300951 · gate run · This comment is maintained automatically — see submission gate docs.}

[github-actions]

🔒 PR Risk Scan Results

Scanned 1 changed file(s).

Severity	Count
🔴 High	0
🟠 Medium	0
ℹ️ Info	0

✅ No matching risk patterns were detected in changed files.

This is an automated soft-gate report. Findings indicate review targets and do not block merge by themselves.

[github-actions]

🔴 Contributor Reputation Check: HIGH risk

Check	Risk
Profile	HIGH
Credential audit	NONE

Maintainers: please review this contributor before merging.
See the workflow run for full details.
Automated check powered by AGT.

[github-actions]

🔍 Vally Lint Results

✅ All checks passed

Scope	Checked
Skills	1
Agents	0
Total	1

Severity	Count
❌ Errors	0
⚠️ Warnings	0
ℹ️ Advisories	0

Summary

Level	Finding
ℹ️	✅ tweetapi (2/2 checks passed)
ℹ️	✓ [spec-compliance] All 1 skill(s) are spec-compliant.
ℹ️	✓ spec-compliance: All spec checks passed.
ℹ️	✓ [valid-refs] All file references across 1 skill(s) are valid.
ℹ️	✓ valid-refs: All file references resolve to existing files within the skill directory.
ℹ️	1 skill(s) linted, 1 passed

Full linter output

### Linting skills/tweetapi
✅ tweetapi (2/2 checks passed)
    ✓ [spec-compliance] All 1 skill(s) are spec-compliant.
        ✓ spec-compliance: All spec checks passed.
    ✓ [valid-refs] All file references across 1 skill(s) are valid.
        ✓ valid-refs: All file references resolve to existing files within the skill directory.

1 skill(s) linted, 1 passed

[aaronpowell]

The PR says you work on TweetAPI and identifies the API as paid. The upstream tweetapi/agent-skill README presents its skill as a path to live data through the quota-consuming hosted MCP, and its LICENSE is copyrighted to TweetAPI. The read-only safeguards and Copilot test are useful, but the contribution's core purpose is onboarding users to a first-party paid API rather than providing a reusable Copilot development workflow, so it isn't a fit for this collection.