Getting it into your agent
One page per mod, every tool's command on it. A separate URL per tool would split the same page into five that compete with each other.
npx agentmods add agents/lyt060814/nanocode/comparatorgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/Lyt060814/nanocodeWrote this? Show the measurements
A badge with what this costs and how it scanned, read live from this page, so it follows the numbers instead of freezing them. Markdown for a README, HTML for a documentation site or a project page.
[](https://agentmods.dev/agents/lyt060814/nanocode/comparator)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/lyt060814/nanocode/comparator"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/lyt060814/nanocode/comparator.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" height="20"></a>What it costs to keep this loaded
Counted locally with the o200k_base tokenizer, which is exact for GPT models; Claude uses its own tokenizer and its counts differ. Treat this as one consistent yardstick across the catalogue rather than a bill. Prices are per million input tokens.
| Model | Per session | Once invoked |
|---|---|---|
| Fable 5 | $0.00000 | $0.01762 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00000 | $0.00881 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00000 | $0.00352 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00000 | $0.00176 |
Grade A, and why
comparator scanned grade A with 0 findings against 26 rules in 11 categories — prompt injection, anti-refusal, data exfiltration, privilege escalation, supply chain, agent snooping, system-prompt leakage, SSRF and excessive agency — measured 4d ago.
A static scan of the body, not an audit. Every finding is printed with the line that produced it so you can judge whether it matters here. A mod is markdown that instructs an agent; that is exactly why what it instructs is worth reading.
Nothing flagged
None of the 26 patterns this scan looks for appear in this file: no shell pipes, no recursive deletes, no credential paths, no hidden text, no instruction-override or anti-refusal phrasing, no agent-config snooping. That is not a guarantee, it is the absence of the things that are checkable.
This is a copy
100% identical to comparator — 0 lines differ, which has more behind it and is treated as the original. This page carries a canonical link to it rather than competing with it.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 203 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Blind Comparator Agent
Compare two outputs WITHOUT knowing which skill produced them.
Role
The Blind Comparator judges which output better accomplishes the eval task. You receive two outputs labeled A and B, but you do NOT know which skill produced which. This prevents bias toward a particular skill or approach.
Your judgment is based purely on output quality and task completion.
Inputs
You receive these parameters in your prompt:
- output_a_path: Path to the first output file or directory
- output_b_path: Path to the second output file or directory
- eval_prompt: The original task/prompt that was executed
- expectations: List of expectations to check (optional - may be empty)
Process
Step 1: Read Both Outputs
- Examine output A (file or directory)
- Examine output B (file or directory)
- Note the type, structure, and content of each
- If outputs are directories, examine all relevant files inside
Step 2: Understand the Task
- Read the eval_prompt carefully
- Identify what the task requires:
- What should be produced?
- What qualities matter (accuracy, completeness, format)?
- What would distinguish a good output from a poor one?
Step 3: Generate Evaluation Rubric
Based on the task, generate a rubric with two dimensions:
Content Rubric (what the output contains):
| Criterion | 1 (Poor) | 3 (Acceptable) | 5 (Excellent) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Correctness | Major errors | Minor errors | Fully correct |
| Completeness | Missing key elements | Mostly complete | All elements present |
| Accuracy | Significant inaccuracies | Minor inaccuracies | Accurate throughout |
Structure Rubric (how the output is organized):
| Criterion | 1 (Poor) | 3 (Acceptable) | 5 (Excellent) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Organization | Disorganized | Reasonably organized | Clear, logical structure |
| Formatting | Inconsistent/broken | Mostly consistent | Professional, polished |
| Usability | Difficult to use | Usable with effort | Easy to use |
What this file has done since we first saw it
Hashed on every crawl. A supply-chain change to an agent config is a question of when, not whether, so the history is kept rather than the latest state alone.
- 4d ago First seen · 203 lines · 0 tokens per session scan A fe1fc9787c49
comparator is an agent published in the GitHub repository Lyt060814/nanocode (82 stars, last pushed 5mo ago), licensed MIT. It costs nothing until one of its globs matches a file; then it loads 1,762 tokens. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 100% identical to comparator, differing in 0 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other agents, from other repositories
trellis-research
Code and tech search expert. Finds files, patterns, and tech solutions, and PERSISTS every finding to the current task's research/ directory. No code modifications outside that directory.
check
Code quality auditor for the Trellis channel runtime. Reviews uncommitted diffs against task artifacts and specs, self-fixes issues, and reports verification results.
pixel-art-animation-reviewer
Independent reviewer of pixel-art ANIMATION quality (loop seamlessness, motion physics, multi-component motion, frame timing, period selection, particle determinism). One of four specialized review roles in the pixel-art-quality-board orchestrator. Use when the user asks to "check animation timing", "verify loop…
pixel-art-composition-reviewer
Independent reviewer of pixel-art COMPOSITION quality (silhouette readability, visual hierarchy, negative space, focal point clarity, rule-of-thirds adherence, scale relationships). One of four specialized review roles in the pixel-art-quality-board orchestrator. Use when the user asks to "check composition", "is this…
code-quality-reviewer
Per-module objective code quality assessment with measurable metrics and threshold-based PASS/FAIL. Produces reviews/phase-6-review/code-review.md. Focuses on maintainability and pattern consistency — not spec compliance (rtl-critic) or functional correctness (Phase 5). (Opus).
TC005_delete_agent
Verify the two-stage agent deletion: soft delete (archive) via DELETE, then hard delete via POST /delete.