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...
Scanned 8/31/2026
Install to Claude Code
npx -y skills add s0912758806p/agentic-sop-to-work --skill second-opinion --agent claude-codeInstalls into .claude/skills of the current project.
Are you the author of Second Opinion?
Add the live security badge to your README — it updates automatically with every re-scan.
[](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/skills/s0912758806p-second-opinion)More formats (shields.io, HTML) on the badges page.
---
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.
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!