Use when asked to get a second opinion on a finished DRAFT, fact-check or double-check a report's claims against its evidence, sanity-check before sign-off, or red-team an output for fabrication / overreach / invented IDs — even without the word "honesty". Works on an agentic-sop-kit run dir (FULL, uses the run's trace) or any plain document (DEGRADED, you supply the inputs). | 要對一份已完成的 DRAFT 取得「第二意見」、在核准前查核報告主張是否有輸入佐證、抓臆造/灌水/過度宣稱/捏造編號時使用;吃 agentic-sop-kit 的 run 目錄(FULL,用 trace)或任何純文件(DEGRADE...
Installs into .claude/skills of the current project.
Are you the author of Second Opinion?
Add the live security badge to your README. It updates with every re-scan.
[](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/skills/s0912758806p-second-opinion)
---
name: second-opinion
description: Use when asked to get a second opinion on a finished DRAFT, fact-check or double-check a report's claims against its evidence, sanity-check before sign-off, or red-team an output for fabrication / overreach / invented IDs — even without the word "honesty". Works on an agentic-sop-kit run dir (FULL, uses the run's trace) or any plain document (DEGRADED, you supply the inputs). | 要對一份已完成的 DRAFT 取得「第二意見」、在核准前查核報告主張是否有輸入佐證、抓臆造/灌水/過度宣稱/捏造編號時使用;吃 agentic-sop-kit 的 run 目錄(FULL,用 trace)或任何純文件(DEGRADED,需自備輸入)。不適用:稽核 agent 架構有沒有拆好/是不是 mega-agent(改用 agentic-workflow-audit);審查原始碼品質/bug/資安(改用 /code-review)。本 skill 只查「這次產出的主張 vs. 證據」誠實度,只產 DRAFT,核准永遠人擁有。
---
# Second Opinion — adversarial honesty reviewer
An **independent, skeptical second reader** for a finished DRAFT. It checks whether every
claim is backed by its evidence and hands back a findings report — which is itself a DRAFT.
A human decides.
## When to use / not use
- **Use** when: "get a second opinion on this report", "is this draft trustworthy / honest",
"double-check the numbers before I sign", "red-team this output", "did it make anything up?"
- **Not** for **architecture** ("is my workflow decomposed / a mega-agent?") → `agentic-workflow-audit`.
- **Not** for **source-code quality / bugs / security** → `/code-review`, `/security-review`.
Second Opinion reads a **produced artifact's claims vs its cited evidence**, in any domain.
## What it catches (domain-neutral)
- **#1** wrong PASS/FAIL or spec-limit verdicts, and aggregates that don't recompute.
- **#2** numbers with no matching source token (fabrication / transcription error).
- **#3** invented identifiers / dates / names with no provenance (should be `【待補】`).
- **#4** conclusions the data don't support (overreach) — advisory.
## How it works (two layers; the guarantees are in CODE, not this prose)
1. **Deterministic layer** (stdlib, hermetic): catches `#1/#2/#3`. In FULL mode these are
**HARD** at confidence 1.0 (the kit `trace` is authoritative); in DEGRADED mode they are
**SOFT** at 0.5 (provenance reconstructed from supplied inputs).
2. **Advisory LLM layer** (you): catches `#4` and fuzzy `#1`. It is **capped**
(`SECONDOP_MAX_LLM_PASSES`, default 1) and every finding is **clamped to SOFT / advisory /
confidence ≤ 0.5**, **dropped** unless it cites a verbatim draft span (or `NO SOURCE`), and
**suppressed** if it re-litigates a slot the deterministic layer already settled.
## To run it
Invoke the **`/second-opinion`** command, which orchestrates the deterministic pass → your
capped advisory pass → the code-enforced fold-in → the human STOP. Modes:
- `/second-opinion <run_dir>` — FULL (an agentic-sop-kit run dir)
- `/second-opinion <doc> --inputs <file...>` — DEGRADED (any document)
- `/second-opinion` — the bundled cross-domain demo
## Iron rules
- Facts only from inputs; unknowns are `【待補】`; never invent numbers / IDs / dates / conclusions
— and the red-team itself may not invent **accusations** (the evidence gate enforces this).
- The deterministic checks are the only HARD signal; the LLM pass is advisory + capped, **in code**.
- The report is a **DRAFT**. A human owns approve / reject. Never auto-approve, never auto-file.
- Real enforcement lives in the code (clamp / evidence-gate / cap) and the optional Stop-hook —
not in this prose.