wshobson/agents vs anthropics/skills
anthropics/skills scores higher overall: 81/100 (A-tier) against 72/100 (A-tier). wshobson/agents leads on maintenance; anthropics/skills leads on reliability, skill leverage, documentation. Scored 2026-07-07, methodology v1.0.
Dimension by dimension
| Dimension | wshobson-agents | anthropic-skills |
|---|---|---|
| Reliability | 68 | 78 |
| Skill Leverage | 76 | 82 |
| Documentation | 74 | 88 |
| Maintenance | 88 | 85 |
| Safety / Governance | 64 | 80 |
| Evaluation Readiness | 55 | 60 |
| Composability | 80 | 88 |
| Adoption (capped) | 82 | 90 |
| Overall | 72 · A | 81 · A |
The entries
A multi-harness plugin marketplace of role-specialized subagents (reviewer, architect, security, docs) installable across Claude Code, Codex…
Anthropic's first-party public skill collection: the de facto reference for SKILL.md structure, frontmatter conventions, and…
Frequently asked questions
wshobson/agents or anthropics/skills?
anthropics/skills scores higher overall (81 vs 72, methodology v1.0). But they are the same category, so the dimension table below is the real answer.
How is this comparison generated?
Both scorecards come from the same public rubric with evidence notes, scored by the same editorial process. This page presents them side by side; it adds no new judgments beyond the scores themselves.