Multi-model code review. Fan out a bug or task to multiple LLMs, diff
Scanned 9/3/2026
Install to Claude Code
npx -y skills add Cristophereasygoing927/compare-mcp --skill compare --agent claude-codeInstalls into .claude/skills of the current project.
Are you the author of Compare?
Add the live security badge to your README — it updates automatically with every re-scan.
[](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/skills/cristophereasygoing927-compare)More formats (shields.io, HTML) on the badges page.
---
name: compare
description: Multi-model code review. Fan out a bug or task to multiple LLMs, diff
their findings, optionally debate, then dispatch subagents to fix in parallel.
Use when the user types /compare or asks to compare models on a code issue.
---
# /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`. Run `compare_models` to 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
Each subagent receives:
- The specific finding title + description
- The file path and its contents
- Instruction: implement this fix, then run existing tests if any exist
- Instruction: commit with message `fix(compare): {todo title}`
After each subagent completes, call `compare_todo_update` to mark the todo as `done`.
## Sub-commands
### `/compare status`
Call `compare_status` and display todos grouped by status.
### `/compare models`
Call `compare_models` and display a table of configured providers.
### `/compare update <id> <status>`
Call `compare_todo_update` to change a todo's status.
Is this your skill, or is something wrong with this listing? Request removal or report an issue. Author removals are honored within 72 hours.
No comments yet. Be the first to comment!