Passing exam with GH-600 latest training materials

Microsoft GH-600 Exam Overview:

Microsoft GH-600 Exam Syllabus Topics:

Microsoft GitHub Agentic AI Developer Sample Questions:

1. You are using GitHub Copilot Chat's agent mode in VS Code and want it to autonomously use tools (terminal, file edits, tests) to complete a multi-step task, checking in with you between major steps. What is this interaction mode called?

A) Ask mode
B) Inline mode
C) Edit mode
D) Agent mode

2. A developer uses the GitHub Copilot CLI in plan mode.
Copilot produces a plan.
What does Copilot do next?

A) opens a pull request that has the plan as a comment
B) saves the plan to plan.md
C) begins the implementation
D) creates a branch named /copilot/plan in the repository

3. Case Study 1 - Contoso, Ltd
Overview
Contoso Ltd. is a software development company located in the United States.
Existing Environment
GitHub Environment
Contoso uses GitHub Enterprise and assigns GitHub Copilot Pro+ licenses to its developers. The developers use Microsoft Visual Studio Code as their IDE.
Contoso has a customer portal. The code for the portal is stored in a GitHub repository named repo1that contains the following:
- A custom agent named agent1 that includes instructions to review specs related to best practices
- A custom instruction file named validate-instructions.md that is used to validate tone of voice and applies to all .md and .txt files
- A custom instruction file named codereview.instructions.md that is used by the Copilot coding agent but is excluded for use by the Copilot code review repo1 has the following structure:
- The front-end is stored in the /frontend folder.
- The API logic is stored in the /api folder.
Contoso has a second repository named repo2 that contains a legacy .NET application named App1 built by using .NET 6. repo2 has a multi-agent workflow for modernization tasks.
Contoso enables the Model Context Protocol (MCP) registry and allows the Microsoft Learn MCP Server. Every developer must configure their own connection to the Learn MCP Server.
Problem Statements
The developers working in repo1 report that the Microsoft Learn documentation is NOT being retrieved when they attempt to validate a design by using agent1.
The testing team at Contoso identifies that the customer portal uses inconsistent UI styles, which leads to customer confusion and branding issues. The UI inconsistencies stem from variations in the folder structure.
Agent Logs
You have the following logs for the multi-agent workflow used in repo2.

Requirements
Planned Changes
Contoso plans to have all agents and developers in repo1use the Microsoft Learn MCP to ensure that reviews are validated by using the appropriate documentation. This must be implemented centrally.
Contoso plans to leverage AI-powered coding agents to implement new portal features and pages.
Technical Requirements
App1 must be upgraded to .NET 10. A previous upgrade attempt was started by using the Copilot modernization agent, but the attempt was never finalized.
You plan to retry the upgrade. You must first analyze App1 by using AI, and then generate a report that contains breaking changes and deprecated patterns before retrying the upgrade.
All AI-generated code for UI styling must adhere to a predefined folder structure.
The architects at Contoso need help building implementation plans for repo1. The company wants to implement a new agent named agent2 to analyze the code base and the code requirements, and then respond with a detailed plan. The agent must NOT be able to edit files or run local commands.
The developers must be able to delegate work to the Copilot coding agent by assigning issues to the agent.
Hotspot Question
You are evaluating the logs of the multi-agent workflow in repo2.
For each of the following statements, select Yes if the statement is true. Otherwise, select No.
NOTE: Each correct selection is worth one point.

4. You use a GitHub Actions workflow to orchestrate a multi-agent draft-review process for pull requests. The workflow uploads a single combined review-package artifact at the end of each run.
You discover that the review-package artifact is occasionally missing from the workflow run history, and you suspect that a user deleted it.
You need to identify which user manually deleted a workflow run artifact and when the deletion occurred.
What should you use?

A) the merge commit history
B) the checks.delete_logs audit log event
C) the pull request description and comment history
D) the artifact.destroy audit log event

5. Case Study 2
Existing Environment
GitHub Environment
The GitHub environment contains the following:
- Three repositories named product-api, billing-service, and infra-terraform.
- Branch protection on the main branch in all repositories that requires at least one pull request review before merging
- GitHub Actions runners used across all workflows
- A GitHub team named SG_Dev that contains developers
- A GitHub team named SG_Review that contains senior engineers and a security team
- A .github/copilot-instructions.md file that includes general coding conventions for all features Agent environment The product-api repository uses a GitHub Copilot coding agent named agent1 that has the following configurations:
- No custom agent profile is defined.
- A Model Context Protocol (MCP) server named MCP1 is deployed to
https://mcp.litwareinc.internal and provides access to internal ticketing and deployment APIs.
MCP1 requires an API key for authentication.
A second Copilot coding agent named agent2 handles changes in infra-terraform and runs in parallel with agent1 when both agents have open assigned issues.
Copilot memory is NOT enabled for the organization.
Problem Statements
Litware identifies the following issues:
- During two recent sessions, agent1 accessed files in billing-service, which is outside the agent's intended scope.
- agent1 makes code changes immediately after receiving a task.
- A developer named Ben, who is on the SG_Dev team, reports that agent1 completed a session with a successful status and opened a pull request, but the pull request contains no file changes.
Other developers report this intermittently as well.
- Both agent1 and agent2 modified shared/config.yaml in a parallel test run, generating conflicting outputs.
agent1 consistently uses raw try-catch blocks for error handling, which violates the defined implementation guidelines of SG_Dev.
Requirements
Planned Changes
Litware plans to make the following changes:
- Ensure that agent1 can access all the tools in the environment.
- Provide product-api with specific instructions to agent1 without affecting Copilot Chat or Copilot code review.
- Configure MCP1 as a tool for agent1 by modifying the product-api repository MCP configuration.
- Ensure that Copilot retains details that it has learned and uses that knowledge for future work.
This must be applied to all licensed members of the organization.
Implementation guidelines
The development team at Litware identifies the following implementation guidelines:
- Agent workflows must be able to run in parallel.
- Application error handling must use the repository ErrorHandler class.
- agent1 and agent2 must run on isolated branches during parallel execution. File-level conflicts must be detected before merges, and both agents must be able to run concurrently.
Security requirements
Litware identifies the following security requirements:
- Only the members of SG_Review must be able to approve agent1 plan outputs.
- All API keys must be stored and accessed securely.
- The developers must NOT be able to self-approve.
Agent configuration

Drag and Drop Question
You need to implement the security requirements for agent1.
Which three actions should you perform in sequence? To answer, move the appropriate actions from the list of actions to the answer area and arrange them in the correct order.

Solutions: