Make published workflows agent-agnostic

[Copilot]

✨ Enhancement

What does this improve?

This updates the published workflow package to stop assuming a specific agent engine and to use neutral workflow names. The token audit and optimization workflows are now positioned as agentic workflow tooling rather than Copilot-only workflows.

Why is this valuable?

Hard-coding engine: copilot and shipping Copilot-branded workflow IDs made the package unnecessarily specific. Removing those assumptions makes the workflows portable across supported agents and aligns the published names with their actual scope.

Implementation approach:

• Published workflow rename

  • Renamed the public workflow IDs from copilot-token-audit / copilot-token-optimizer to agentic-token-audit / agentic-token-optimizer
  • Updated the human-facing workflow titles and descriptions to describe agentic workflow token usage rather than Copilot-specific usage

• Engine-neutral workflow sources

  • Removed explicit engine: copilot declarations from workflow sources
  • Removed --engine copilot filtering from gh aw logs collection so the audit/optimizer operate across agentic workflow runs

• Repo integration updates

  • Updated README usage examples and workflow links to the new names
  • Updated CI, install, and setup workflows to add, detect, and run the renamed workflows
  • Regenerated compiled workflow outputs to keep installed and published artifacts in sync

• Example

  # before
  tracker-id: copilot-token-audit
  engine: copilot
  
  gh aw logs --engine copilot --start-date -1d --json

  # after
  tracker-id: agentic-token-audit
  
  gh aw logs --start-date -1d --json

[mnkiefer]

@copilot instead of replacing name "copilot" to "agentic", maybe "agent" would be a better choice. Weigh pros and cons.

[Copilot]

@copilot instead of replacing name "copilot" to "agentic", maybe "agent" would be a better choice. Weigh pros and cons.

agent is shorter and more readable, but I think agentic is a better fit here. Pros for agent: simpler, less jargon, nicer in IDs. Cons: it can sound like a single agent or coding agent rather than the broader gh-aw / agentic-workflow model. Pros for agentic: it matches the repo name and the upstream terminology (GitHub Agentic Workflows), and it stays clearly workflow-scoped rather than engine- or agent-specific. Main downside is that it’s a bit more niche-sounding. I’d keep agentic for consistency, but if you want the shorter public IDs I can switch them to agent-token-audit / agent-token-optimizer.

[mnkiefer]

@copilot Recompile workflows

[Copilot]

@copilot Recompile workflows

Re-ran gh aw compile and gh aw compile --dir workflows locally. They produced no diff, so 85c3149 is already in sync with the current compile output.