Getting it into your agent
One page per mod, every tool's command on it. A separate URL per tool would split the same page into five that compete with each other.
npx agentmods add skills/easyinplay/harnessed/second-opinionnpx skills add easyinplay/harnessed --skill second-opiniongit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/easyinplay/harnessedWrote this? Show the measurements
A badge with what this costs and how it scanned, read live from this page, so it follows the numbers instead of freezing them. Markdown for a README, HTML for a documentation site or a project page.
[](https://agentmods.dev/skills/easyinplay/harnessed/second-opinion)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/easyinplay/harnessed/second-opinion"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/easyinplay/harnessed/second-opinion.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" height="20"></a>What it costs to keep this loaded
Counted locally with the o200k_base tokenizer, which is exact for GPT models; Claude uses its own tokenizer and its counts differ. Treat this as one consistent yardstick across the catalogue rather than a bill. Prices are per million input tokens.
| Model | Per session | Once invoked |
|---|---|---|
| Fable 5.1 | $0.00100 | $0.01531 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00050 | $0.00766 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00020 | $0.00306 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00010 | $0.00153 |
Grade A, and why
verify-second-opinion scanned grade A with 0 findings against 26 rules in 11 categories — prompt injection, anti-refusal, data exfiltration, privilege escalation, supply chain, agent snooping, system-prompt leakage, SSRF and excessive agency — measured 6d ago.
A static scan of the body, not an audit. Every finding is printed with the line that produced it so you can judge whether it matters here. A mod is markdown that instructs an agent; that is exactly why what it instructs is worth reading.
Nothing flagged
None of the 26 patterns this scan looks for appear in this file: no shell pipes, no recursive deletes, no credential paths, no hidden text, no instruction-override or anti-refusal phrasing, no agent-config snooping. That is not a guarantee, it is the absence of the things that are checkable.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 90 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
verify-second-opinion workflow (v3)
Overview
1-phase sub-workflow — 编排契约改动时的跨模型第二意见 (Phase 54 T2)。
| phase | id | upstream | model | capability | gate |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 01-second-opinion |
gstack | sonnet | {{ capabilities.codex.cmd }} |
judgments.stage-routing.verify-second-opinion-orchestration.fires |
判据不是交给模型的判断题。harnessed facts 把 git diff --name-only <last release tag>
与 ORCHESTRATION SURFACE (judgments / capabilities / 事实 schema / resolver / exprBuilder /
ledger / disciplines / 任一 workflows SKILL.md) 求交集,机械得出 requires_second_opinion。
基准是上一个 release tag,不是 merge-base origin/main —— 后者在 commit-即-push-main
的纪律下塌缩成 HEAD,只看得见未提交改动,会漏掉多-commit milestone 的早期 commit。
算不出来 (无 tag / 无 git / diff 失败) 时取 false,并在每轮 <workflow-state> 断点打出
SECOND-OPINION: 判据不可用(<原因>)。不乱 fire,且不静默。
Capability refs
Sister workflows/capabilities.yaml entries:
codex— 第二意见 / cross-AI peer review via codex (impl: gstack, cmd: /codex)
Gate ref
Sister workflows/judgments/stage-routing.yaml:
verify-second-opinion-orchestration.fires—phase.stage == 'verify' and requires_second_opinion == true
Routing rules
- ✅ 触发: 本次改动触及编排契约本身 (judgments / capabilities.yaml / phaseFactContext / facts.ts / judgmentResolver / exprBuilder / ledger.ts / disciplines / 任一 SKILL.md)
- ❌ 跳过: 纯 installer / 文档 / 测试 / 依赖 bump —— 改这些不会改变引擎的决策方式
交付物即证据。 本 sub fire 了就必须交 second-opinion.md;不交则 checkpoint complete
fail-closed 阻断,--force 在 ledger 记 evidence_status: overridden。跳过因此是台账上
一行,不是隐形的。
How to invoke
!harnessed checkpoint intent verify-second-opinion
The banner above (when present) means this invocation is REGISTERED with the engine (an intent marker) — not yet compliant: the steps below (prompt → spawn → checkpoint complete) resolve it, and a per-turn
<workflow-intent>reminder persists until they run.
The numbered sequence below is the state machine — execute it with Bash. Do NOT improvise an equivalent flow from the Overview above: freelancing bypasses the engine (no ledger, no evidence guard). harnessed gives you the spawn-ready prompt; YOU spawn the subagent with a CC-native Task / Agent tool (keeps the session responsive + lets clarification round-trips reach the user).
What ships with it
2 files beside SKILL.md in the same directory: the scripts, references and assets a skill reads on demand. Not counted in the per-session cost; read them before you install if any of them is executable.
What this file has done since we first saw it
Hashed on every crawl. A supply-chain change to an agent config is a question of when, not whether, so the history is kept rather than the latest state alone.
- 6d ago First seen · 90 lines · 100 tokens per session scan A 3bb07898be26
verify-second-opinion is a skill published in the GitHub repository easyinplay/harnessed (2 stars, last pushed 10d ago), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 100 tokens to every session and 1,531 once invoked, about $0.0005 per session on Opus 5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. No closer match exists in the catalogue, so it is treated as the original; first seen 2026-08-31.
Other skills, from other repositories
gemini
Cross-model second opinion from Google Gemini — a different AI reviewing the same changes, with deep Google ecosystem knowledge. Three modes: review (pass/fail gate for Google Ads campaigns, SEO metadata, or code), challenge (adversarial stress-test that tries to break your changes), and consult (open Q&A with Gemini…
audit
Project health audit and health check — architecture, performance, tests, dependencies, code quality. Use when assessing overall project health, before releases, or after refactors.
boundaries
Analyze Phoenix context boundaries and module coupling via mix xref. Use when checking cross-context calls, validating dependencies, before splitting modules, or reviewing architecture.
triage
Triage review findings interactively — approve, skip, or prioritize each issue. Use after /phx:review to filter findings before fixing.
critical-code-reviewer
Rigorously review code or pull requests for correctness, security, accessibility, maintainability, tests, and edge cases. Use when users request a critical code review, want a guided walkthrough of findings, need implementer-facing feedback, or want to prepare, create, or submit a GitHub pull request review.
security-architecture-review
Reviews a design or change for security before it ships — authentication and authorization, data handling, secrets, dependencies, and the secure-development practices around it. Use this to review an architecture or pull request for security, set secure coding standards, choose or tune SAST and DAST tooling, assess a…