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 skills/n24q02m/claude-plugins/comparenpx skills add n24q02m/claude-plugins --skill comparegit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/n24q02m/claude-pluginsWrote 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/n24q02m/claude-plugins/compare)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/n24q02m/claude-plugins/compare"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/n24q02m/claude-plugins/compare.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 | $0.00015 | $0.00815 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00008 | $0.00407 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00003 | $0.00163 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00081 |
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 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 compare — 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 — 71 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Compare
Structured comparison of 2+ alternatives. Enforces a comparison matrix with consistent criteria so every alternative is evaluated on the SAME data points.
Steps
-
Define the comparison frame:
- List all alternatives to compare (minimum 2)
- Identify the use case or decision context (WHY is this comparison needed?)
- Ask the user for must-have requirements vs nice-to-have criteria
-
Define evaluation criteria before searching (prevents cherry-picking):
- Choose 5-8 criteria relevant to the use case
- Common technical criteria: performance, developer experience, ecosystem/community, documentation quality, maintenance status, license, cost, learning curve
- Weight criteria: must-have vs important vs nice-to-have
- Every criterion MUST be evaluated for ALL alternatives (no gaps)
-
Research each alternative using
searchandextract:search(action="search", query="[alternative] [criterion] benchmark OR comparison")- For each alternative, gather the SAME data points
- Prefer quantitative data (benchmarks, stars, download counts, release frequency)
- Note data recency — a 2023 benchmark may not reflect 2026 reality
- Use
extracton official docs for feature verification
-
Build the comparison matrix:
| Criterion (weight) | Alternative A | Alternative B | Alternative C | |---------------------|---------------|---------------|---------------| | Performance (must) | [data+source] | [data+source] | [data+source] | | DX (important) | [data+source] | [data+source] | [data+source] |- Every cell must have a value — use "No data found" if genuinely unavailable
- Include source links for verifiable claims
- Use consistent units (same benchmark suite, same metric)
-
Produce decision recommendation:
- Best for [use case X]: [Alternative] — because [reason based on must-have criteria]
- Best for [use case Y]: [Alternative] — if the use case differs
- Tradeoffs: What you give up with each choice
- Avoid if: Dealbreaker scenarios for each alternative
- Confidence: High (extensive data) / Medium (partial data) / Low (limited data)
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 · 71 lines · 15 tokens per session scan A 62b4eaf9929d
compare is a skill published in the GitHub repository n24q02m/claude-plugins (3 stars, last pushed today), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 15 tokens to every session and 815 once invoked, about $0.0001 per session on Opus 5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 100% identical to compare, differing in 0 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other skills, from other repositories
persona-triggers
페르소나 v5 트리거 상세(AT 20패턴 + 15관점 매핑·매칭 예시). 관점·객관적·철저·깊이·검증·추천·디버깅·방향·진행·근거·출처·사례·팩트·증거 등 트리거 단어 감지 시 상세 참조.
persona-format
페르소나 v5 L2/L3 응답 형식 — 15관점 활성·문제해결 절차·7섹션 템플릿·자가검증·fail-safe·금지원칙. 코드 변경·디버깅·구현 등 L2/L3 작업 시 로드.
persona-accountant
15년+ 회계·세무 전문가 페르소나(#14) 깊은 도메인. 회계·세무·세금·종합소득세·부가가치세·원천징수·경비처리·세금계산서·절세·사업자등록·기장·손금·소득공제·세액공제·홈택스·국세청 맥락 시 활성.
persona-marketer
15년+ 마케팅·세일즈 전문가 페르소나(#15) 깊은 도메인. 마케팅·세일즈·카피·콘텐츠·SEO·광고·랜딩페이지·전환·퍼널·브랜딩·포지셔닝·리드·캠페인·리텐션·그로스·어카운트·컨설팅 맥락 시 활성.
persona-safety
페르소나 v5 안전 작업 — 보안 always-on·비가역 작업 게이트·코드 메타규칙·모바일 UI(375px) 검증·외부도구 도입검토. 코드/UI/보안/배포/삭제/force push 작업 시 로드.
persona-lawyer
15년+ 전문 변호사 페르소나(#11) 깊은 도메인. 법률·계약·면책·규제·약관·audit·자본시장법·GDPR·개인정보·저작권·라이선스·AML·컴플라이언스 맥락 시 활성.