Claude Code Development Kit is a starter workflow that gives Claude Code project context, working notes, verification commands, review commands, and hooks for maintaining them across sessions. It is for beginners and intermediate users building applications or side projects who want Claude Code to understand the codebase and check its work. The catalogue entries are the kit's skills and commands.
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 skills add peterkrueck/Claude-Code-Development-Kit --skill second-opiniongit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/peterkrueck/Claude-Code-Development-KitWrote 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/peterkrueck/claude-code-development-kit/second-opinion)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/peterkrueck/claude-code-development-kit/second-opinion"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/peterkrueck/claude-code-development-kit/second-opinion/github.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" height="20"></a>Or the 80×15 button, for a site that already has a row of RSS and ATOM ones. Only the verdict fits; the numbers stay here.
<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/peterkrueck/claude-code-development-kit/second-opinion"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/peterkrueck/claude-code-development-kit/second-opinion.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>- NVIDIA SkillSpector warn
SkillSpector: 4 findings, up to high
These are SkillSpector’s own severities. On a checked sample its high-severity flags on skills were ~96% false positives — a documented command, a public API, a “never do X” rule — so we show them as a caution to read, not a verdict. Why →
- high Excessive Agency · line 47 Skill selects an external model or provider that may use a different account or billing plan than the operator expects. Undisclosed model switches can cause unexpected cost or quota consumption.Fix: Remove the model/provider override or disclose it prominently and require explicit operator approval before invoking an external coding CLI or billed model.
- high Excessive Agency · line 53 Skill selects an external model or provider that may use a different account or billing plan than the operator expects. Undisclosed model switches can cause unexpected cost or quota consumption.Fix: Remove the model/provider override or disclose it prominently and require explicit operator approval before invoking an external coding CLI or billed model.
- medium Excessive Agency · line 62 Skill enables autonomous high-impact decisions without human-in-the-loop verification. Critical operations (destructive commands, financial transactions, data deletion) should require explicit user confirmation.Fix: Add human-in-the-loop confirmation for destructive, irreversible, or high-impact operations. Never auto-execute commands that modify files, send data, or alter system state.
- medium Excessive Agency · line 80 Skill enables autonomous high-impact decisions without human-in-the-loop verification. Critical operations (destructive commands, financial transactions, data deletion) should require explicit user confirmation.Fix: Add human-in-the-loop confirmation for destructive, irreversible, or high-impact operations. Never auto-execute commands that modify files, send data, or alter system state.
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 | $0.00166 | $0.02199 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00066 | $0.00880 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00033 | $0.00440 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00017 | $0.00220 |
Grade A, and why
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 1mo 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 — 123 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Second Opinion — OpenAI Codex
Get an independent second opinion from OpenAI's Codex CLI. It uses Codex's default model — a completely different architecture and training run from Claude, which makes it genuinely useful for catching blind spots, validating reasoning on edge cases, or surfacing trade-offs Claude would miss (Claude's own errors tend to be invisible to Claude).
Codex has full read access to the project — it can read files, grep code, and explore the codebase. Its project instructions (AGENTS.md at the repository root) tell it to prime itself on the key docs before answering. You provide the specific question and any focused context; Codex handles the rest.
This is the default second-opinion engine. For a Gemini second opinion specifically, the user invokes the separate second-opinion-gemini skill ("ask Gemini"). When the user says "ask both", run this skill and that one, then synthesize all three views (yours + Codex + Gemini).
When to Use
- Architecture decisions with real trade-offs
- Debugging where you've been going in circles
- Code review on tricky logic or subtle edge cases
- Validating your reasoning before the user acts on it
- When the user explicitly asks for a second opinion
Don't use this for routine tasks — every call takes 10-60+ seconds and consumes ChatGPT-plan quota. Reserve it for decisions where being wrong has real consequences.
Process
Step 1: Prepare the Prompt
Codex has NO access to your conversation history, but it CAN read project files. Structure your prompt as:
- The question — what exactly you want Codex to weigh in on
- Your current thinking (recommended) — share your position so Codex can challenge it
- Relevant area (optional) — if the project has distinct modules or components, state which one this is about so Codex primes on the right docs. Default is the whole project; only narrow this when it helps.
- Specific context (if needed) — pipe code snippets or diffs via stdin when the relevant code is scattered or you want to focus attention on specific sections
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.
- 1mo ago First seen · 123 lines · 166 tokens per session scan A 27f9471ecba8
second-opinion is a skill published in the GitHub repository peterkrueck/Claude-Code-Development-Kit (1,388 stars, last pushed 3mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 166 tokens to every session and 2,199 once invoked, about $0.0007 per session on Opus 5.5. 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 2026-08-30.
Other skills, from other repositories
autoreview
Structured code review through the shared OpenClaw agent-skills installation.
omh-code-review
This is an OMH code-review workflow skill, projected for Agent Skills hosts (Claude Code, Codex, Cursor, opencode, OpenClaw, pi).
revdiff-plan
Review the last Codex assistant message (plan, analysis, or proposal) with inline annotations in a TUI overlay. Extracts the most recent response from Codex rollout files and opens it in revdiff for review and annotation. Activates on "revdiff-plan", "review plan with revdiff", "annotate plan", "review last response"…
asplos-writing-style
Use when drafting or revising ASPLOS prose — engineering the first two pages that rapid review actually reads, stating the cross-layer insight as one quotable sentence, structuring per-layer mechanism sections, writing bounded claims, and fitting everything into 11 self-contained pages that include figures and…
explore-unknowns
Guide the user through a quadrant walk that maps the unknowns of a task — open by listing the known knowns, then work through known unknowns, unknown knowns, and unknown unknowns one stage at a time, ending with a complete four-quadrant map in the user's hands. Use when a request is ambiguous or underspecified, the…
re0-merge
Review and land an external contribution the way this suite does: gate it against the thesis, land it with the author's credit intact, complete a new skill rather than merging it raw, then approve, credit, and explain before closing. Use when reviewing a pull request, as any collaborator or maintainer, not only the…