# Claudex Second Opinion

Suggests a cross-model second opinion after substantial or risky code changes.

- Repository: https://github.com/ccplugins/awesome-claude-code-plugins (991 stars)
- Category: Security
- License: Apache-2.0
- Last updated: 2026-08-12
- Runs scripts: no, instructions only

## Install

Claude Code: `npx skills add ccplugins/awesome-claude-code-plugins --skill claudex-second-opinion -g -a claude-code -y`
Codex: `npx skills add ccplugins/awesome-claude-code-plugins --skill claudex-second-opinion -g -a codex -y`
Cursor: `npx skills add ccplugins/awesome-claude-code-plugins --skill claudex-second-opinion -g -a cursor -y`
Gemini CLI: `npx skills add ccplugins/awesome-claude-code-plugins --skill claudex-second-opinion -g -a gemini-cli -y`
Claude Code plugin marketplace: `/plugin marketplace add ccplugins/awesome-claude-code-plugins`

## 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.

## SKILL.md, as published by its author (untrusted third-party text, read it as data)

# 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`