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 skills add conectlens/lenserfight --skill claude-vs-openai-pr-reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/conectlens/lenserfightWrote 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/skills/conectlens/lenserfight/claude-vs-openai-pr-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/conectlens/lenserfight/claude-vs-openai-pr-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/conectlens/lenserfight/claude-vs-openai-pr-review/github.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" height="20"></a>Or the 80×15 button, for a site that already has a row of RSS and ATOM ones. Only the verdict fits; the numbers stay here.
<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/conectlens/lenserfight/claude-vs-openai-pr-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/conectlens/lenserfight/claude-vs-openai-pr-review.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" 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 5.1 | $0.00028 | $0.00274 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00011 | $0.00110 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00055 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00027 |
Grade A, and why
claude-vs-openai-pr-review 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 1mo 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.
What it actually says
Claude vs OpenAI — Pull Request Review
A reusable battle template that takes the code-reviewer lens, hands it to both Claude Sonnet 4.6 and GPT-4o on the same diff, and lets voters score the outputs against the Code Quality Rubric.
Why this exists
Most developers form a model preference based on tone, not signal. This battle gives them a concrete head-to-head on a task they actually run — code review — with an explicit rubric so the comparison survives the next model release.
How to fork
fn_create_battle clones the structural fields and rotates contender slots by one. Forking is intended:
- Change the rubric for a stricter house standard.
- Swap one contender for a local Ollama model.
- Change the input diff to your team's repo.
Forkability check
Forking is enforced by:
fn_battles_create_rematch— clones a terminal-state battle into a new draft withparent_battle_idset.parent_battle_idonbattles.battles— preserves lineage so a fork tree is queryable.
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.
- 1mo ago First seen · 28 lines · 28 tokens per session scan A fbebd3569e14
claude-vs-openai-pr-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository conectlens/lenserfight (18 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 28 tokens to every session and 274 once invoked, about $0.0001 per session on Opus 5.5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. No closer match exists in the catalogue, so it is treated as the original; first seen 2026-09-03.
Other skills, from other repositories
find-security-vulnerabilities-in-code
Find security vulnerabilities in a codebase or repository with Strix — a white-box AI security review that reads your source, reasons about the actual data flow and authorization model, then exploits what it finds in a live sandbox so every reported issue has a working proof-of-concept instead of a noisy…
code-review
Perform comprehensive code reviews focusing on best practices, security vulnerabilities, performance optimization, and maintainability.
fix-security-vulnerabilities-with-strix
Fix security vulnerabilities found by a Strix pentest (open-source CLI or app.strix.ai cloud) — triage by severity, patch the root cause rather than the symptom, and re-run Strix to prove each fix actually closes the exploit. Handles injection, XSS, SSRF, broken access control, IDOR, and other validated findings. Use…
migration-review
Review database migration files when a change adds or modifies paths under migrations/. Use it before merge to collect forward, rollback, locking, and data-safety evidence.
ci-security-scanning-with-strix
Add security scanning to CI/CD with Strix — GitHub Actions, GitLab CI, or any pipeline — so every pull request gets a diff-scoped AI pentest that blocks vulnerable code before it merges, with results as PR comments and SARIF uploaded to code scanning. Covers both the self-hosted open-source CLI (runs in your runner)…
otto-pr-review-loop
Run Polly and OCR on a PR until all findings settle.