Compare skills
Pick 2–4 skills and compare what really matters: fit, risk, install effort, and community signal.
Comparison matrix
Highlights show current best; tooltip explains diff/best rules.
Score-basis diff rules / risk tag notes
Start with the matrix. Open this section when you need to understand audit grades, top threats, control gaps, and best-value highlights.
Suggested baseline
Repository: pydantic-ai
Author: pydantic · Source status: Clear source
AI Agent Framework, the Pydantic way Topics: agent-framework, genai, llm, pydantic, python.
Score basis：Clear source · High execution risk · Universal · Evidence completeness 65%
Search to add skills, or paste 2–4 comma-separated slugs.
How differences are detected
A row is marked different when selected skills have distinct values. Only-differences mode hides rows that are identical.
How best values are highlighted
Pre-install score, evidence completeness, and community signal prefer higher values; execution risk and install friction prefer lower values.
How to read risk tags
Risk tags come from SAS-v2.1 public-evidence signals and point to command, network, secret, context, or supply-chain items to review before install.
Selected audit signals
ui-ux-pro-max
Execution risk：High
Threat tags：data exfiltration, human approval gap
Control gaps：missing license, network without allowlist, no human approval
flexible-graphrag
Execution risk：High
Threat tags：unexpected code execution, data exfiltration, memory context poisoning
Control gaps：missing license, broad permissions, shell without guardrails
Commitment Ready. 承诺。Compromiso.
Execution risk：High
Threat tags：unexpected code execution, identity privilege abuse, data exfiltration
Control gaps：missing license, broad permissions, shell without guardrails
| Dimension | ui-ux-pro-max | flexible-graphrag | Commitment Ready. 承诺。Compromiso. |
|---|---|---|---|
| Pre-install decision | |||
Pre-install score | 82 · Manual review | 81 · Manual review | 85 · Manual review |
Score basis | Clear source, High execution risk, Claude | Clear source, High execution risk, Universal | Clear source, High execution risk, Claude |
Threat tags | data exfiltration, human approval gap | unexpected code execution, data exfiltration, memory context poisoning | unexpected code execution, identity privilege abuse, data exfiltration |
Control gaps | missing license, network without allowlist, no human approval | missing license, broad permissions, shell without guardrails | missing license, broad permissions, shell without guardrails |
Permission summary | Network, Command | Permission review, Network, Command | Permission review, Network, Secrets, Command |
Evidence completeness | 63% | 67% | 67% |
| Source & provenance | |||
Provenance | nextlevelbuilder/ui-ux-pro-max-skill/tree/main/.claude/skills/ui-ux-pro-max | stevereiner/flexible-graphrag | openclaw/skills |
Category | Design & Content | Knowledge & RAG | Design & Content |
Freshness | |||
| Risk & permission signals | |||
Audit signals | No explicit signals | No explicit signals | needs credentials, network access, runs shell, writes files |
Permission hints | registry access, remote metadata pull, runtime dependencies may be required | repository clone, local runtime dependencies | verify source provenance before install |
| Install & compatibility | |||
Supported tools | Claude, Codex, Cursor, Universal | Universal | Claude, OpenClaw |
Install method | registry-install | script-backed | script-backed |
Install friction | |||
| Community | |||
Stars | 29.8K | 117 | 0 |
Repository: n8n
Author: n8n-io · Source status: Clear source
Fair-code workflow automation platform with native AI capabilities.
Score basis：Clear source · High execution risk · Universal · Evidence completeness 65%
Repository: dify
Author: langgenius · Source status: Clear source
Production-ready platform for agentic workflow development.
Score basis：Clear source · High execution risk · Universal · Evidence completeness 65%
2026-02-04 |
2026-03-30 |
2026-04-01 |
50 |
40 |
65 |
