synaptiai/agent-capability-standard/compare

Name: compare
Author: synaptiai

Claude Code and agent skill by synaptiai/agent-capability-standard

Trust tier 2

community

LLM review pending

Source check pending

Checking that the SKILL.md file is still in the repository.

Compare multiple alternatives using explicit criteria, weighted scoring, and tradeoff analysis. Use when choosing between options, evaluating alternatives, or making decisions.

Install

npx vskill@latest install synaptiai/agent-capability-standard/compare

SKILL.md

Intent

Systematically evaluate multiple alternatives against defined criteria to produce a recommendation with transparent tradeoff analysis. Comparison enables informed decision-making through structured analysis.

Success criteria:

All options evaluated against same criteria
Criteria weighted by importance
Clear recommendation with rationale
Tradeoffs explicitly documented

Compatible schemas:

schemas/output_schema.yaml

Inputs

Parameter	Required	Type	Description
`options`	Yes	array	Alternatives to compare (2+ items)
`criteria`	No	array	Evaluation dimensions (weight them with `weights`)
`weights`	No	object	Criteria weights

Inputs not listed here are outside the capability's contract: a workflow step that binds them gets W604 (STANDARD v1.1 §5.5).

Procedure

1) Enumerate options: List all alternatives under consideration

Verify each option is viable (not obviously invalid)
Ensure options are at same abstraction level
Flag if options are not mutually exclusive

2) Define criteria: Establish evaluation dimensions

Quantitative criteria: measurable (cost, time, size)
Qualitative criteria: assessed (quality, maintainability, risk)
Apply hard requirements (must-haves) as filters to eliminate non-viable options

3) Assign weights: Determine relative importance of each criterion

Weights should sum to 1.0
If not provided, use equal weights
Document rationale for weight assignments

4) Score each option: Evaluate options against criteria

Quantitative: normalize to 0-1 scale
Qualitative: rate as 0.0 (poor) to 1.0 (excellent)
Document evidence for each score

5) Calculate weighted scores: Aggregate criteria scores

weighted_score = sum(criterion_score * criterion_weight)
Rank options by weighted score (ranking, scores)

6) Analyze tradeoffs: Document what each choice sacrifices

Identify criteria where top choice is not best
Quantify the gap between options on key criteria

7) Formulate recommendation: Propose choice with rationale

May recommend conditionally based on priorities
Flag if options are too close to distinguish

8) Ground claims: Attach evidence anchors to scores and analysis

Output Contract

Return a structured object:

yaml

options:
  - id: string  # Option identifier
    summary: string  # Brief description
criteria:
  - name: string  # Criterion name
    weight: number  # 0.0-1.0 importance weight
    type: quantitative | qualitative
comparison_matrix:
  - option_id: string
    scores:
      - criterion: string
        score: number  # 0.0-1.0 normalized score
        rationale: string  # Why this score
ranking:  # Options ordered best-first by weighted score
  - option_id: string
    weighted_score: number  # 0.0-1.0
scores:  # Weighted score per option
  <option_id>: number  # 0.0-1.0
recommendation: string  # Recommended (top) option ID
recommendation_rationale: string  # Why this option
recommendation_confidence: number  # 0.0-1.0 in recommendation
tradeoffs:
  - option: string
    pros: array[string]
    cons: array[string]
confidence: number  # 0.0-1.0 overall comparison confidence
evidence_anchors: array[string]  # References to data sources
assumptions: array[string]  # Conditions affecting comparison

Field Definitions

Field	Type	Description
`options`	array	List of alternatives with summaries
`criteria`	array	Evaluation dimensions with weights
`comparison_matrix`	array	Scores for each option on each criterion
`ranking`	array<object>	Options ordered best-first, each with `option_id` and `weighted_score`
`scores`	object	Weighted score per option, keyed by option id
`recommendation`	string	Recommended option ID (the top of `ranking` unless rationale says otherwise)
`recommendation_rationale`	string	Why the recommended option was chosen
`recommendation_confidence`	number	0.0-1.0 confidence in the recommendation
`tradeoffs`	array	Pros/cons for each option
`confidence`	number	0.0-1.0 overall analysis confidence
`evidence_anchors`	array[string]	References supporting scores
`assumptions`	array[string]	Conditions that could change outcome

Examples

Example 1: Compare Database Options

Input:

yaml

options:
  - id: "postgres"
    summary: "PostgreSQL relational database"
  - id: "mongodb"
    summary: "MongoDB document database"
  - id: "dynamodb"
    summary: "AWS DynamoDB managed service"
criteria: ["query_flexibility", "operational_overhead", "cost_at_scale", "team_familiarity"]
weights:
  query_flexibility: 0.3
  operational_overhead: 0.25
  cost_at_scale: 0.25
  team_familiarity: 0.2

The workload is mixed read/write at 10M records, run by a team of 3; the scores below assume that context.

Output:

yaml

options:
  - id: "postgres"
    summary: "PostgreSQL relational database with JSONB support"
  - id: "mongodb"
    summary: "MongoDB document database with flexible schema"
  - id: "dynamodb"
    summary: "AWS DynamoDB fully managed NoSQL"
criteria:
  - name: "query_flexibility"
    weight: 0.3
    type: qualitative
  - name: "operational_overhead"
    weight: 0.25
    type: qualitative
  - name: "cost_at_scale"
    weight: 0.25
    type: quantitative
  - name: "team_familiarity"
    weight: 0.2
    type: qualitative
comparison_matrix:
  - option_id: "postgres"
    scores:
      - criterion: "query_flexibility"
        score: 0.95
        rationale: "Full SQL + JSONB queries, complex joins supported"
      - criterion: "operational_overhead"
        score: 0.6
        rationale: "Requires backup, replication, tuning expertise"
      - criterion: "cost_at_scale"
        score: 0.7
        rationale: "~$500/mo for 10M records on RDS"
      - criterion: "team_familiarity"
        score: 0.9
        rationale: "All 3 engineers have 3+ years PostgreSQL experience"
  - option_id: "mongodb"
    scores:
      - criterion: "query_flexibility"
        score: 0.75
        rationale: "Good document queries, limited joins"
      - criterion: "operational_overhead"
        score: 0.7
        rationale: "Atlas reduces ops burden, but sharding is complex"
      - criterion: "cost_at_scale"
        score: 0.6
        rationale: "~$700/mo for 10M records on Atlas"
      - criterion: "team_familiarity"
        score: 0.4
        rationale: "1 engineer with production MongoDB experience"
  - option_id: "dynamodb"
    scores:
      - criterion: "query_flexibility"
        score: 0.4
        rationale: "Limited query patterns, requires careful data modeling"
      - criterion: "operational_overhead"
        score: 0.95
        rationale: "Fully managed, auto-scaling, zero maintenance"
      - criterion: "cost_at_scale"
        score: 0.75
        rationale: "~$400/mo with on-demand pricing"
      - criterion: "team_familiarity"
        score: 0.3
        rationale: "No team experience with DynamoDB"
ranking:
  - option_id: "postgres"
    weighted_score: 0.79
  - option_id: "mongodb"
    weighted_score: 0.63
  - option_id: "dynamodb"
    weighted_score: 0.605
scores:
  postgres: 0.79
  mongodb: 0.63
  dynamodb: 0.605
recommendation: "postgres"
recommendation_rationale: "Highest weighted score (0.79) driven by query flexibility and team familiarity. Operational overhead is manageable with RDS."
recommendation_confidence: 0.8
tradeoffs:
  - option: "postgres"
    pros:
      - "Most flexible query capabilities"
      - "Team already proficient"
      - "Strong ecosystem and tooling"
    cons:
      - "Highest operational overhead"
      - "Requires capacity planning"
  - option: "mongodb"
    pros:
      - "Flexible document model"
      - "Good middle ground on ops"
    cons:
      - "Team learning curve"
      - "Higher cost than alternatives"
  - option: "dynamodb"
    pros:
      - "Zero operational burden"
      - "Lowest cost at scale"
    cons:
      - "Significant team ramp-up needed"
      - "Query pattern limitations"
confidence: 0.85
evidence_anchors:
  - "aws:pricing-calculator:dynamodb"
  - "mongodb:atlas-pricing:m30"
  - "team_survey:db_experience:2024"
assumptions:
  - "Workload remains mixed read/write"
  - "No need for global distribution initially"
  - "Team composition stable for 6+ months"

Evidence pattern: Read pricing documentation, survey team skills, analyze workload patterns.

Example 2: Compare Refactoring Approaches

Input:

yaml

options:
  - "incremental refactoring"
  - "complete rewrite"
  - "strangler fig pattern"
criteria: ["risk", "time_to_value", "final_quality"]
weights:
  risk: 0.4
  time_to_value: 0.35
  final_quality: 0.25

Hard requirement: any option must maintain production uptime.

Output:

yaml

options:
  - id: "incremental"
    summary: "Gradual refactoring while maintaining existing system"
  - id: "rewrite"
    summary: "Complete rebuild from scratch"
  - id: "strangler"
    summary: "Progressively replace components behind abstraction"
criteria:
  - name: "risk"
    weight: 0.4
    type: qualitative
  - name: "time_to_value"
    weight: 0.35
    type: qualitative
  - name: "final_quality"
    weight: 0.25
    type: qualitative
comparison_matrix:
  - option_id: "incremental"
    scores:
      - criterion: "risk"
        score: 0.85
        rationale: "Small changes, easy rollback"
      - criterion: "time_to_value"
        score: 0.7
        rationale: "Continuous improvement, but slow overall"
      - criterion: "final_quality"
        score: 0.6
        rationale: "May accumulate tech debt from compromises"
  - option_id: "rewrite"
    scores:
      - criterion: "risk"
        score: 0.3
        rationale: "Big bang cutover, high failure risk"
      - criterion: "time_to_value"
        score: 0.2
        rationale: "No value until complete"
      - criterion: "final_quality"
        score: 0.9
        rationale: "Clean slate, optimal design"
  - option_id: "strangler"
    scores:
      - criterion: "risk"
        score: 0.75
        rationale: "Component-level risk, rollback per component"
      - criterion: "time_to_value"
        score: 0.8
        rationale: "Each component delivers value"
      - criterion: "final_quality"
        score: 0.8
        rationale: "Good design with some integration overhead"
ranking:
  - option_id: "strangler"
    weighted_score: 0.78
  - option_id: "incremental"
    weighted_score: 0.735
  - option_id: "rewrite"
    weighted_score: 0.415
scores:
  strangler: 0.78
  incremental: 0.735
  rewrite: 0.415
recommendation: "strangler"
recommendation_rationale: "Best balance of risk and time-to-value (0.78 weighted score). Delivers incremental value while achieving good final quality; incremental refactoring is close behind (0.735), within the 0.1 margin."
recommendation_confidence: 0.75
tradeoffs:
  - option: "strangler"
    pros:
      - "Incremental value delivery"
      - "Manageable risk"
    cons:
      - "Abstraction layer overhead"
      - "Longer total timeline than rewrite"
confidence: 0.8
evidence_anchors:
  - "fowler:strangler-fig-pattern"
  - "internal:outage-report:2024-q3"
assumptions:
  - "Team can maintain abstraction discipline"
  - "System is decomposable into components"

Verification

[ ] All options evaluated against all criteria
[ ] Criterion weights sum to 1.0
[ ] All scores are in 0.0-1.0 range with rationale
[ ] Recommendation aligns with highest weighted score
[ ] Tradeoffs identify criteria where recommendation is not best
[ ] Hard requirements (must-haves) properly filtered options

Verification tools: Manual review of scoring rationale, stakeholder validation

Safety Constraints

mutation: false
requires_checkpoint: false
requires_approval: false
risk: low

This is the start of the file. Read the full SKILL.md on GitHub.

Security

Security scanPassed, 100 of 100Pattern checks on the skill's files.
Model reviewNot runA model review is scheduled for the next rescan.

See the full security report

Quality evaluation

Task evaluationNot runNo evaluation yet. Run one in Skill Studio.

See evaluation results

Source

SKILL.md in the repositoryCheckingskills/compare/SKILL.md

Popularity

7-day trend score: 0

Not refreshed yet.

Works with

Any agent vskill installs to: 56 targets in all. These 39 have a page on this site.

Claude Code
Cursor
GitHub Copilot
Windsurf
Codex
Gemini CLI
Cline
Amp
Roo Code
Goose
Continue
Kilo Code
Junie
Trae
OpenHands
Qwen Code
AI Agent
Tabnine Chat
Sourcegraph Cody
Amazon Q
Firebase Genkit
Sweep
Devin
Phind
Mentat
Claude Desktop
Aider
GPT Pilot
Plandex
bolt.new
v0
Replit Agent
Anse
TypingMind
BetterChatGPT
LibreChat
Warp AI
Pieces
Fig AI

Embed badge

[![vskill VERIFIED](https://verified-skill.com/api/v1/skills/synaptiai/agent-capability-standard/compare/badge)](https://verified-skill.com/skills/synaptiai/agent-capability-standard/compare)

Something wrong with this skill or its page? Tell us.