--- name: claudex-second-opinion 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. --- # 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 `, 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`