Loading skill
Install any skill in seconds. Free to start, no credit card required.
Get Started Free →fcakyon/codex-advisor
This skill should be used when the user asks for a "GPT second opinion", wants a "cross-model review", needs to "check a plan before committing", wants another view after repeated failures, or explicitly invokes "codex-advisor".
Passed 15 of 20 test cases with the skill, and 7 of 20 without it.
and 12 more in the full report
11 fixed6 passed either way3 still failing2 broke
Tokens, turns and time describe resource use, not a dollar price.
This benchmark measured an earlier version of the skill.
A newer attempt on gemini-3.6-flash on 10/2/2026 did not produce a publishable comparison (not comparable). The snapshot above is the previously measured run.
One of 11 test cases the skill fixed. Same model, same prompt, with and without the skill.
In Claude Code, what is the exact agent name to delegate to when seeking a second opinion?
| Checked | Without skill | With skill |
|---|---|---|
| Names `codex-advisor` as the agent. | Missed | Passed |
The instructions your model reads when the skill loads.
Get a focused second opinion from GPT-6 Astra through the Codex CLI, without handing the work over to it.
In Claude Code, delegate to the native codex-advisor agent. It receives the
recent conversation automatically, so do not paste the history yourself.
Elsewhere, run this exact shape from this skill's directory so the request reaches standard input:
node scripts/ask_codex.mjs <<'REVIEW'
the review request
REVIEW
State the decision, the evidence behind it, and any constraint that changes the verdict. Name the paths that matter: the reviewer has read-only access and checks load-bearing claims itself.
Return the answer without rewriting it. If codex is missing or unauthenticated,
surface the error and ask the user to install it or sign in. Never review in its
place.
Pinned to gpt-6-astra at medium reasoning effort.
Give the verdict serious weight. If a step it recommends fails when tried, or a file contradicts a specific claim, surface the conflict instead of following the review blindly.
test cases passed, vs 7 / 20 without
Published skills whose descriptions closely match this one, with their headline benchmark lift.
More skills from the same source and nearby in the registry, with their headline benchmark lift.