Best for
- Has multiple job offers to compare
- Needs to evaluate total compensation
- Wants to make a data-driven job decision
PramodDutta/qaskills/seed-skills/offer-comparison-analyzer/SKILL.md
Compare multiple job offers side-by-side with total compensation analysis
Decision brief
Compare multiple job offers side-by-side with total compensation analysis
Compatibility matrix
| Platform | Status | Evidence | What to check |
|---|---|---|---|
| Codex | Declared | Source record | Install path and trigger |
| Claude Code | Declared | Source record | Install path and trigger |
| Cursor | Declared | Source record | Install path and trigger |
| Gemini CLI | Not declared | No explicit evidence | Portability before use |
Installation
The source command is displayed only when detected. A safe inspection prompt is always available so your agent can explain every action before execution.
npx skills add https://github.com/PramodDutta/qaskills --skill "seed-skills/offer-comparison-analyzer"Inspect the Agent Skill "Offer Comparison Analyzer" from https://github.com/PramodDutta/qaskills/blob/fb3fbec70591bad971dd97c5d9add6eaa99bae18/seed-skills/offer-comparison-analyzer/SKILL.md at commit fb3fbec70591bad971dd97c5d9add6eaa99bae18. List every install step, command, network request, credential, file read/write, external action, and rollback step. Explain whether it fits my task. Do not install or execute anything until I approve.
Workflow
Startup vs. Established: - Funding runway - Market position - Company trajectory - Equity risk (could be worth $0)
Review the “Step 1: Define Your Priorities” section in the pinned source before continuing.
Review the “Step 2: Score Each Factor” section in the pinned source before continuing.
Review the “Step 3: Calculate Weighted Score” section in the pinned source before continuing.
Use this skill when the user: - Has multiple job offers to compare - Needs to evaluate total compensation - Wants to make a data-driven job decision - Is weighing different opportunities - Mentions: "compare offers", "multiple offers", "which job", "offer comparison", "deciding…
Permission review
No configured static risk pattern was detected
This is not proof of safety. Runtime behavior, indirect dependencies, and hidden external systems are outside the static scan.
Evidence record
| Signal | Value | Evidence type | Meaning |
|---|---|---|---|
| Quality score | 91/100 | Computed | Documentation, specificity, maintenance, and trust rules |
| Repository stars | 211 | Source | Repository attention, not individual Skill quality |
| Compatibility | 3 platforms | Source | Declared in the catalog source record |
| Usage guide | automated source guide | Editorial | Generated or reviewed according to the visible evidence level |
Pinned source
Use this skill when the user:
The Problem: Comparing offers is hard because:
The Solution: Systematic comparison framework that considers:
Cash Compensation:
Equity Compensation:
Benefits Value:
Perks Value:
OFFER A - TOTAL COMPENSATION
CASH
Base Salary: $150,000
Signing Bonus (year 1 only): $25,000
Target Bonus (15%): $22,500
--------------------------------
Cash Compensation: $197,500 (year 1)
$172,500 (ongoing)
EQUITY
RSU Grant: $200,000 over 4 years
Annual Value: $50,000
--------------------------------
Equity Compensation: $50,000/year
BENEFITS
401(k) Match (4%): $6,000
Health Insurance: $15,000 (employer portion)
HSA Contribution: $1,000
--------------------------------
Benefits Value: $22,000/year
PERKS
Vacation: 20 days (vs 10 standard)
Extra 10 days × ~$575/day: $5,750 value
Remote Work Savings: $3,000 (commute, lunch)
Professional Dev: $2,000 budget
--------------------------------
Perks Value: $10,750/year
TOTAL YEAR 1: $280,250
TOTAL ONGOING: $255,250/year
# OFFER COMPARISON
| | Company A | Company B | Notes |
|--------------------------|-----------|-----------|-------|
| **CASH** | | | |
| Base Salary | $150,000 | $160,000 | B +$10K |
| Signing Bonus | $25,000 | $10,000 | A +$15K |
| Target Bonus | 15% | 10% | A +$6.5K |
| **Cash Total (Yr 1)** | $197,500 | $186,000 | A +$11.5K |
| | | | |
| **EQUITY** | | | |
| Grant Value (4yr) | $200,000 | $300,000 | B +$100K |
| Annual Equity | $50,000 | $75,000 | B +$25K |
| | | | |
| **BENEFITS** | | | |
| 401(k) Match | 4% | 6% | B +$3.2K |
| Health Insurance | Good | Premium | B better |
| PTO | 20 days | Unlimited | Varies |
| | | | |
| **TOTAL COMP (Yr 1)** | $280,250 | $285,000 | B +$4.7K |
| **TOTAL COMP (Ongoing)** | $255,250 | $275,000 | B +$19.7K |
Questions to Consider:
Scoring:
Company A: Growth Score
- Learning opportunity: 8/10
- Brand/resume value: 7/10
- Promotion potential: 6/10
- Scope: 8/10
Average: 7.25/10
Company B: Growth Score
- Learning opportunity: 7/10
- Brand/resume value: 9/10
- Promotion potential: 8/10
- Scope: 7/10
Average: 7.75/10
Factors:
Factors:
Startup vs. Established:
Questions:
Factor Weight
------------------------------------
Total Compensation 25%
Career Growth 25%
Work-Life Balance 20%
Team & Culture 20%
Location/Commute 10%
------------------------------------
Total: 100%
Company A Company B
Factor Score (1-10)
------------------------------------
Compensation 7 8
Career Growth 7 8
Work-Life 8 6
Team & Culture 9 7
Location 8 5
Company A:
(7 × 0.25) + (7 × 0.25) + (8 × 0.20) + (9 × 0.20) + (8 × 0.10)
= 1.75 + 1.75 + 1.60 + 1.80 + 0.80
= 7.70
Company B:
(8 × 0.25) + (8 × 0.25) + (6 × 0.20) + (7 × 0.20) + (5 × 0.10)
= 2.00 + 2.00 + 1.20 + 1.40 + 0.50
= 7.10
Result: Company A scores higher (7.70 vs 7.10)
When comparing offers:
# JOB OFFER COMPARISON
## Offers Being Compared
- **Offer A:** [Role] at [Company]
- **Offer B:** [Role] at [Company]
## Total Compensation Comparison
| Component | Offer A | Offer B | Difference |
|-----------|---------|---------|------------|
| Base | $X | $X | |
| Bonus | $X | $X | |
| Equity (annual) | $X | $X | |
| Benefits | $X | $X | |
| **Year 1 Total** | $X | $X | |
| **Ongoing Total** | $X | $X | |
## Non-Monetary Comparison
| Factor | Offer A | Offer B | Notes |
|--------|---------|---------|-------|
| Career Growth | X/10 | X/10 | |
| Work-Life | X/10 | X/10 | |
| Team/Culture | X/10 | X/10 | |
| Risk Level | X/10 | X/10 | |
## Weighted Analysis
Using your priorities:
- Offer A Score: X.XX
- Offer B Score: X.XX
## Key Differences
1. [Key difference 1]
2. [Key difference 2]
3. [Key difference 3]
## Recommendation
Based on your stated priorities of [X, Y, Z], **Offer [A/B]** appears to be the stronger choice because:
- [Reason 1]
- [Reason 2]
- [Reason 3]
## Things to Clarify Before Deciding
- [ ] [Question for Company A]
- [ ] [Question for Company B]
## Negotiation Opportunities
- [Opportunity 1]
- [Opportunity 2]
When comparing QA offers, weigh the automation trajectory as hard as the pay: a role where you build frameworks compounds your market value; a role executing someone else's manual suites decays it. Ask each company: what percent of QA time is automation, who owns the framework, is there a path from QA to SDET or quality platform work, and what happens to testers when AI tooling lands. A 10% higher salary for a manual-only role is usually the worse offer over a three-year horizon.
Adapted for QA professionals by The Testing Academy (thetestingacademy) from Resume Skills. The original work is used under the MIT License, reproduced in full below. Modifications to this file are released under the same license.
MIT License
Copyright (c) 2026 Resume Skills
Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy
of this software and associated documentation files (the "Software"), to deal
in the Software without restriction, including without limitation the rights
to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell
copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the Software is
furnished to do so, subject to the following conditions:
The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all
copies or substantial portions of the Software.
THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR
IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY,
FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE
AUTHORS OR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER
LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM,
OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN THE
SOFTWARE.
Frequently asked questions
Compare multiple job offers side-by-side with total compensation analysis
The source record exposes this install command: npx skills add https://github.com/PramodDutta/qaskills --skill "seed-skills/offer-comparison-analyzer". Inspect the command and pinned source before running it.
The pinned source record declares support for: codex, claude code, cursor.
Alternatives
PramodDutta/qaskills
Optimize resumes for Applicant Tracking Systems, check ATS compatibility, and analyze keyword match
PramodDutta/qaskills
Generate optimized test combinations using pairwise (all-pairs) testing algorithms to achieve maximum coverage with minimum test cases across multiple input parameters
PramodDutta/qaskills
Gate RAG pipelines in CI with versioned golden eval sets, per-metric thresholds, baseline drift detection, and a build that fails when retrieval or answer quality regresses.
upex-galaxy/agentic-qa-boilerplate
Execute regression test suites via CI/CD, analyze results, classify failures, and produce GO/NO-GO release decisions. Use when running regression, smoke, or sanity suites through GitHub Actions, monitoring workflow runs, downloading Allure or Playwright artifacts, classifying failures (REGRESSION vs FLAKY vs KNOWN vs ENVIRONMENT vs NEW TEST), computing pass-rate and trend metrics, deciding release readiness, generating executive quality reports, or creating regression issues. Triggers on: run re