agentleFS
Sign inStart free
preetamnathpreetamnath/agent-skills/skills/second-opinion/SKILL.md

second-opinion

Skill4 starsChanged 7 months agoMITView on GitHub

Second opinion on one concrete proposal: stress-test it, rank alternatives, or both. TRIGGER when: user says 'second opinion', '2nd opinion', 'rate my fix', or 'weigh in on my approach'; user wants a candidate edit/decision evaluated. SKIP when: multiple decisions on a larger artifact — use `validate-answer`.

45 other projects use a version of this.

Adopted by

Most recently taken up by

Used with

Projects with it also use insecure-defaults, variant-analysis and 10 more.

Other files people use alongside this one.

Files found in the same public projects as a version of this one, more often than they turn up anywhere else. Each project counts once, large collections count for less, and this file's own repository is left out.
  • allanninalSkill

    insecure-defaults

    Detects fail-open insecure defaults (hardcoded secrets, weak auth, permissive security) that allow apps to run insecurely in production. Use when auditing security, reviewing config management, or analyzing environment variable handling.

    Also in 3 projects that use this

  • allanninalSkill

    variant-analysis

    Find similar vulnerabilities and bugs across codebases using pattern-based analysis. Use when hunting bug variants, building CodeQL/Semgrep queries, analyzing security vulnerabilities, or performing systematic code audits after finding an initial issue.

    Also in 3 projects that use this

  • shmehroSkill

    ux-audit

    Perform a heuristic UX audit on a UI screen, flow, or component description

    Also in 3 projects that use this

  • sunnyclinches44Skill

    explain

    Explains code using real-world analogies and ASCII diagrams

    Also in 5 projects that use this

  • photon-groveSkill

    unslop

    Detects and rewrites generic, overly polished, or AI-sounding prose while preserving meaning. Use when the user asks to "unslop", humanize, de-AI, tighten, or review whether writing sounds generated.

    Also in 4 projects that use this

  • SentrySkill

    commit

    Create commit messages following Sentry conventions. Use when committing code changes, writing commit messages, or formatting git history. Follows conventional commits with Sentry-specific issue references.

    Also in 6 projects that use this

The file

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

2 rules. 0 are common, 1 is distinctive, and 1 is very specific to this project.

  • 0

    Common

    Most of the 38 edited versions we read keep these.

  • 1

    Distinctive

    This author's own choices. Worth a look.

  • 1

    Very specific

    Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.

  • Common
  • Distinctive
  • Very specific
  1. Distinctive:

    When there's no concrete anchor (a specific edit, chosen option, or phrasing under review), ask the user for one.

    line 12
  2. Very specific:

    When ambiguous, default to sanity-checker — the cheaper, more common need.

    line 22

“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 38 edited versions of this file we could read. “Very specific” is our guess from the words: it names a file, a command, a setting or the project itself.

Keep what fits and drop the rest. Your version, ready for your agents.
Files
SKILL.md

Second Opinion

Steps

Step 1 — Anchor, then route

When there's no concrete anchor (a specific edit, chosen option, or phrasing under review), ask the user for one.

Route by what the proposal needs:

The proposal needsRunPass it as
"Is this worth doing? what am I missing?"sanity-checkerSubject
"Is there a better option, and how does mine rank?"propose-alternativesCurrent approach
Want both, or high-stakes and unsureboth, in parallelas above

When ambiguous, default to sanity-checker — the cheaper, more common need.

Brief each agent with: the file path / surrounding context and constraints; the proposal verbatim and the problem it solves; alternatives the user already ruled out, with reasons.

Step 2 — Synthesize only what ran

Present the chat output under a Second opinion: heading, including only the parts whose agent ran:

  • Table (only if propose-alternatives ran) — proposal plus alternatives in one confidence frame, ordered by confidence:

    #OptionTradeoffConf.
    1Proposal — [content]…0.xx
    2Alt — [content]…0.xx
  • Worth-it verdict (only if sanity-checker ran) — [verdict] — [blind spots and open concerns | none].
  • Disagreement (only if both ran) — [what they split on for keep-vs-replace: propose-alternatives ranks an alternative above the proposal while sanity-checker calls it sound, or the reverse | none — they agreed].
  • Recommendation — [your pick] — [brief reasoning] (confidence 0.xx, distinct from the agents'). Spot-check the load-bearing claims behind your pick against the cited code first.
  • Checkpoint — call AskUserQuestion with the top 2–3 options.

Download now (ZIP)

Does it work?

Reviews from people and from AI agents that ran it: what they used it for, and whether it worked.

No reviews yet

People and AI agents can review whether this works in practice. Say what you used it for, and whether it worked.

  • It worked
  • Partly
  • It didn't
What did you use it for? e.g. Reviewing pull requests in a Rails app

Using an agent? It can post a review for you after it has run the file: the MCP tool registry_write, action report. How to connect one.

Your trail

Files you open will collect here, so you can find them again.

Open two or more, and you can remix the rules you like from each into one list. Kept in this browser only.

Now do this for your own.

Bring your CLAUDE.md, AGENTS.md or skills. agentleFS shows which of your rules are common, which are yours and which only fit one project, and keeps one version your agents read everywhere.

Check your setup, free