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 johnqtcg/awesome-skills --skill stock-peer-comparison-reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/johnqtcg/awesome-skillsWrote 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/johnqtcg/awesome-skills/stock-peer-comparison-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/johnqtcg/awesome-skills/stock-peer-comparison-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/johnqtcg/awesome-skills/stock-peer-comparison-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/johnqtcg/awesome-skills/stock-peer-comparison-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/johnqtcg/awesome-skills/stock-peer-comparison-review.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>- NVIDIA SkillSpector pass
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 | $0.00127 | $0.03114 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00063 | $0.01557 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00025 | $0.00623 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00013 | $0.00311 |
Grade A, and why
stock-peer-comparison-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 13d 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 — 243 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Stock Peer Comparison Review
Purpose
Most single-stock analyses fall into one of two failure modes:
- Tunnel vision: declaring the target has a "wide moat" or "industry-leading margins" without ever showing what the peer set actually does.
- Peer-set selection bias: comparing only against weaker peers to flatter the target.
This worker fixes both. It loads a fixed 12-item ratio panel, computes the target and each peer on the same definition, and surfaces the rank position. The Industry and Business workers can claim "Azure is gaining share" — this worker reports the ratios that either confirm or contradict the claim independent of narrative.
The output is a small, dense, rank-ordered comparison table. It is not a recommendation; it is the independent data the orchestrator uses to validate the moat and market-share claims of other workers.
When To Use
- Orchestrator dispatches in Standard or Strict depth (Tier-1 always-on at those depths).
- Lite depth and a peer set of >=2 names exists and the question is valuation- or moat-shaped ("expensive", "cheap", "fair price", "moat", "vs peers", "losing share") -> dispatched in Lite mode: General 12-item panel only, no archetype-specific extension. See
stock-analysis-lead/references/dispatch-protocol.mdPart 1 Tier 1 for the authoritative trigger. - User explicitly asks "how does X compare to peers".
- A specific competitive claim ("losing share", "best-in-class margins") needs independent verification.
When NOT To Use
- Lite depth with no peer set, or a Lite question that is not valuation/moat-shaped — the Tier-1 trigger does not fire and the orchestrator scores the peer-dependent items
UNSCOREDrather than guessing. - Companies with no comparable peers (rare, but e.g., single-issuer ADRs, novel asset classes).
- Sector ETFs or funds (compose peer index instead).
Mandatory Gates
1) Peer Set Validation Gate
Must use 2–4 peers identified by the orchestrator (typically from the 10-K Item 1 Competition section + WebSearch). Reject peer-set selections that are obviously cherry-picked weaker:
- All peers materially smaller than target (>10× revenue gap)
- All peers in distressed states
- Peer set excludes the obvious #1 in the category
What ships with it
3 files beside SKILL.md in the same directory: the scripts, references and assets a skill reads on demand. Not counted in the per-session cost; read them before you install if any of them is executable.
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.
- 13d ago First seen · 243 lines · 127 tokens per session scan A 11002fc2e03e
stock-peer-comparison-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository johnqtcg/awesome-skills (30 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed MIT. It adds 127 tokens to every session and 3,114 once invoked, about $0.0006 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 2026-08-30.
Other skills, from other repositories
security-compliance
Guides security professionals in implementing defense-in-depth security architectures, achieving compliance with industry frameworks (SOC2, ISO27001, GDPR, HIPAA), conducting threat modeling and risk assessments, managing security operations and incident response, and embedding security throughout the SDLC.
stride-analysis-patterns
Apply STRIDE methodology to systematically identify threats. Use when analyzing system security, conducting threat modeling sessions, or creating security documentation.
cache-components
Expert guidance for Next.js Cache Components and Partial Prerendering (PPR). PROACTIVE ACTIVATION: Use this skill automatically when working in Next.js projects that have cacheComponents: true in their next.config.ts/next.config.js. When this config is detected, proactively apply Cache Components patterns and best…
manage-skills
A maintenance workflow for checking whether project verification skills still cover the code and rules that changed during a session.
blind-spot-pass
Use before starting work in a domain you don't know well, to surface the "unknown unknowns" — the things you don't even know to ask about — and learn just enough to prompt and decide well. Implements the "blind spot pass" pattern from Anthropic's Fable "finding your unknowns" field guide. Triggers when you say "I'm…
skill-factory
A workflow that examines completed session work and turns reusable patterns into Claude Code skills.