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 T4wroot/agentic-seo --skill comparison-tablegit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/T4wroot/agentic-seoWrote 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/t4wroot/agentic-seo/comparison-table)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/t4wroot/agentic-seo/comparison-table"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/t4wroot/agentic-seo/comparison-table/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/t4wroot/agentic-seo/comparison-table"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/t4wroot/agentic-seo/comparison-table.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 | $0.00177 | $0.02471 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00071 | $0.00988 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00035 | $0.00494 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00018 | $0.00247 |
Grade A, and why
comparison-table-generator 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.
This is a copy
100% identical to comparison-table-generator — 155 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 — 155 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Components: Comparison Table Section
Guides comparison tables as an in-page section: a scannable matrix (rows × columns) embedded inside landing pages, blog posts, pricing pages, homepages, or docs. Not a standalone page type—parent page structure, URLs, and "alternatives vs blog" decisions come from alternatives-page-generator, landing-page-generator, article-page-generator, pricing-page-generator, etc. Distinct from FAQ (Q&A → FAQPage) and from HowTo (procedure → HowTo). schema-markup remains the source for exhaustive Schema.org rules; this skill owns section-level criteria, copy, HTML/accessibility, fairness, and ad alignment.
When invoking: On first use, if helpful, open with 1–2 sentences on what this skill covers and why it matters, then provide the main output. On subsequent use or when the user asks to skip, go directly to the main output.
Comparison Table Section vs Alternatives Page
| Dimension | Comparison table section (this skill) | Alternatives / compare page |
|---|---|---|
| Scope | One block: headings, table, footnotes, optional CTA line | Full page or article: headline, intro, verdict, listicles, FAQ, metadata |
| URL / intent | Chosen by parent; section supports commercial or informational parent | Owns "X alternatives", "X vs Y", PPC landing strategy |
| PPC | Align copy and criteria with ad and parent LP | Owns where paid traffic lands (dedicated LP vs blog) |
| Skill | comparison-table-generator (this) | alternatives-page-generator |
Use both when building an alternatives LP: alternatives-page-generator for page structure; comparison-table-generator for the table itself (criteria, rows, cells, fairness).
Comparison Types (Same Component, Different Framing)
| Type | Rows / columns | Typical use |
|---|---|---|
| Product vs product | You vs 1–N competitors or tools | Alternatives LP, category pages, blog "best X" |
| Traditional vs modern | Old workflow vs your approach | Category creation, thought leadership, LP objection handling |
| Manual vs automated | Spreadsheets, agencies, DIY vs product | Mid-funnel LP, demo request pages |
| Before / after | State A vs State B (metrics allowed if true) | Outcome-focused LP, case studies |
| Feature / capability matrix | Features as rows; plans or products as columns | Pricing-adjacent, features-page-generator context |
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 · 155 lines · 177 tokens per session scan A 374fb3b5c742
comparison-table-generator is a skill published in the GitHub repository T4wroot/agentic-seo (15 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 177 tokens to every session and 2,471 once invoked, about $0.0007 per session on Opus 5.5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 100% identical to comparison-table-generator, differing in 155 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other skills, from other repositories
fire-your-seo-agency
A procedure for improving how a website appears in search engines and how AI answer systems find and cite it. It covers search, answer-engine, generative-AI, and Naver visibility.
backlink-outreach
Find, evaluate, pitch and track natural backlink and content partnerships. Prospects come from the GEO citation data rather than a generic blog search: the targets are the pages an AI already cites when answering your category questions. Research runs on the Monid tool layer (web search and scrape, authority metrics…
content-thicken
Evidence-driven blog driver. Takes ONE target from the fused search plus AI-answer content library, pulls the real questions it has to answer, drafts a thick long-form guide against a template contract, validates it deterministically, and stops at preview. Two modes, thicken an already-earning post IN PLACE (never…
geo-monitor
Run and read the GEO pipeline, which measures whether AI answer engines mention, recommend and cite your site. Puts a fixed registry of real user questions to an answer engine through the Monid tool layer, detects the three signals plus competitors, and turns "a rival is named and we are not" into a tracked work…
seo-intake
Run and read the SEO intake pipeline. Pulls the organic keyword set for your domain and for each competitor through the Monid tool layer, computes the gap locally, and routes every keyword to the one action that can help it (write-new / striking / build-depth / defend / noise). Use when asked to refresh the SEO queue…
optimise-seo
Use when explicitly authorized to implement a bounded, approved SEO action in a codebase or content system, verify the exact change, and report its limitations; do not use for broad audits, self-approved production changes, or outcome guarantees.