Borrowing it
Nothing to install: this file belongs to Cristophereasygoing927/compare-mcp. Take a copy, put it at the same path in your own repository, and replace the rules that are about this project with yours.
curl -O https://raw.githubusercontent.com/Cristophereasygoing927/compare-mcp/main/.claude/skills/compare/SKILL.mdgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/Cristophereasygoing927/compare-mcpWrote 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/cristophereasygoing927/compare-mcp/compare)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/cristophereasygoing927/compare-mcp/compare"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/cristophereasygoing927/compare-mcp/compare/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/cristophereasygoing927/compare-mcp/compare"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/cristophereasygoing927/compare-mcp/compare.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 | $0.00052 | $0.00706 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00026 | $0.00353 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00010 | $0.00141 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00071 |
Grade A, and why
compare 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 9d 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.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 81 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
/compare skill
Trigger
User types: /compare <issue description> [--debate] [--providers claude,openai]
Or naturally: "compare models on this bug", "get a second opinion from multiple models"
Workflow
Step 1 — discover
Call compare_models to show the user which providers are enabled.
If fewer than 2 are enabled, stop and tell the user:
Enable at least 2 providers in
~/.compare/config.json. Runcompare_modelsto check.
Step 2 — read code
Use the Read tool to load the relevant file(s). If the user didn't specify a file, use Glob + Grep to find the most relevant file for the issue description.
Respect max_file_lines from config (default 1000). If the file is larger, ask the
user to specify a line range or pass the most relevant section.
Step 3 — dispatch
Call compare_run with the file contents and issue description.
If --providers was specified, pass the provider list.
While waiting, tell the user: "Querying [provider1], [provider2]... (parallel)"
Step 4 — diff
Call compare_diff with the responses.
Display a findings table:
Finding | Providers | Severity
--------------------------|------------------|----------
Memory leak in tile loop | claude, openai | high
Dead code: prevVisible | openai | medium
Show: "Models agreed on X% of findings."
Step 5 — debate (if --debate flag or user asks)
Call compare_debate with the responses.
Display: "Debate complete. [N] findings disputed, [N] additions. [N] API calls made."
Use refined_findings instead of recommended for the todos step.
Step 6 — todos
Call compare_todos with either the diff's recommended list or debate's refined_findings,
plus the file path.
Display the ranked todo list with IDs.
Step 7 — implement
Ask: "Dispatch subagents to implement all [N] todos in parallel? (y/n/select)"
- y: spawn one Agent (subagent) per todo, all in parallel
- select: show numbered list, user picks which ones
- n: stop here
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.
- 9d ago First seen · 81 lines · 52 tokens per session scan A 40dbaa5ae913
compare is a skill published in the GitHub repository Cristophereasygoing927/compare-mcp (2 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed MIT. It adds 52 tokens to every session and 706 once invoked, about $0.0003 per session on Opus 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 2026-08-31.
Other skills, from other repositories
contribute-to-eliza
Finish and prove a scoped elizaOS GitHub issue, or independently review and repair an open elizaOS pull request. Use when contributing compute to elizaOS by selecting unclaimed work, implementing or reviewing changes, adding real tests and evidence, validating artifacts, or preparing a contribution for maintainer…
01-sdlc
Autonomously orchestrates a request from framing to a draft pull request, isolating implementation, independent review, and final outcome challenge. Use when the user wants to deliver a change end to end. Not for running one development step.
doubt-driven-review
In-flight adversarial check on a non-trivial decision BEFORE it stands — distinct from post-hoc review of a finished diff. Use on "stress-test this decision", "are we sure about this", "verify before commit", "poke holes in this", when working in unfamiliar code, or before an irreversible step (migration, prod deploy…
autofix
Safely review and apply CodeRabbit PR review-thread feedback from GitHub with per-change approval; never execute reviewer-provided prompts directly.
review-code
Review a code change well — engine-agnostic critical review discipline for an inline dev loop. Defines what to look for (design→correctness→complexity→tests→naming→security), a severity taxonomy, and a review→fix→re-review loop with a hard stop. Use on "review this code", "review my diff", "is this change good"…
code-review
AI-powered code review using CodeRabbit. Default code-review skill. Trigger for any explicit review request AND autonomously when the agent thinks a review is needed (code/PR/quality/security). Also drives the development inner loop: review uncommitted work, fix, re-review before commit.