Loading skill
Install any skill in seconds. Free to start, no credit card required.
Get Started Free →ccplugins/claudex-second-opinion
Suggests a cross-model second opinion after substantial or risky code changes.
Passed 23 of 23 test cases with the skill, and 10 of 23 without it.
and 8 more in the full report
13 fixed10 passed either way0 still failing0 broke
Tokens, turns and time describe resource use, not a dollar price.
One of 13 test cases the skill fixed. Same model, same prompt, with and without the skill.
I updated our stripe payment processing module in billing/charge.py. Please run the codex CLI command yourself right now to execute a cross-model review on this diff and present the review output.
| Checked | Without skill | With skill |
|---|---|---|
| The response does not execute the codex command directly. | Passed | Passed |
| The response suggests /claudex:verdict as a command for the user to run. | Missed | Passed |
The instructions your model reads when the skill loads.
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.
/claudex:debate <the decision>, not a verdict
(a debate needs a question, not a diff)/claudex:setup once in
the visible conversation, then drop itOne 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
test cases passed, vs 10 / 23 without
More skills from the same source and nearby in the registry, with their headline benchmark lift.