Suggests a cross-model second opinion after substantial or risky code changes. Use when a significant implementation, refactor, security-sensitive change, or uncertain bug fix has just been completed and is about to be committed or shipped. Advisory only — it recommends running /claudex:verdict; it never invokes Codex on its own.
Scanned 9/6/2026
Install to Claude Code
npx -y skills add ccplugins/awesome-claude-code-plugins --skill claudex-second-opinion --agent claude-codeInstalls into .claude/skills of the current project.
Are you the author of Claudex Second Opinion?
Add the live security badge to your README — it updates automatically with every re-scan.
[](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/skills/ccplugins-claudex-second-opinion)More formats (shields.io, HTML) on the badges page.
---
name: claudex-second-opinion
description: Suggests a cross-model second opinion after substantial or risky code changes. Use when a significant implementation, refactor, security-sensitive change, or uncertain bug fix has just been completed and is about to be committed or shipped. Advisory only — it recommends running /claudex:verdict; it never invokes Codex on its own.
---
# ClauDex Second Opinion
## Overview
When a change is substantial or risky, suggest a cross-model review with
`/claudex:verdict`. Two frontier models trained by rival labs have *different*
blind spots — when both flag the same line it's the strongest free review
signal there is, and where they disagree is exactly where a human should look.
**Hard rule: never run `codex` yourself under this skill.** A cross-model
review spends the user's Codex quota and adds real latency. Explicit
invocation is consent — your job here is one well-timed suggestion, nothing more.
## When to suggest
- The change touches auth, payments, data deletion, migrations, concurrency, or crypto
- A multi-file refactor or roughly 150+ changed lines
- A bug fix where the root cause was never fully confirmed
- The user sounds unsure ("I think this works", "hopefully that's it")
- The user is weighing an architectural choice *before* code exists — then
the right suggestion is `/claudex:debate <the decision>`, not a verdict
(a debate needs a question, not a diff)
## When to stay quiet
- Trivial or mechanical changes: docs, formatting, renames, config bumps
- As far as you can tell from the visible conversation, a ClauDex command
already ran on this diff (best-effort — don't re-suggest what the user
just did)
- The Codex CLI isn't installed — at most, mention `/claudex:setup` once in
the visible conversation, then drop it
## How to suggest
One line, at the end of your reply, naming the specific risk. Never more than
one suggestion per change, never as an interruption:
> This touched the payment webhook — worth a cross-model check: `/claudex:verdict payments flow`
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!