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-opinion-geminigit 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-gemini)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/peterkrueck/claude-code-development-kit/second-opinion-gemini"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/peterkrueck/claude-code-development-kit/second-opinion-gemini/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-gemini"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/peterkrueck/claude-code-development-kit/second-opinion-gemini.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>- NVIDIA SkillSpector warn
SkillSpector: 2 findings, up to medium
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 →
- medium Excessive Agency · line 75 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 87 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 | $0.00159 | $0.02150 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00064 | $0.00860 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00032 | $0.00430 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00016 | $0.00215 |
Grade A, and why
second-opinion-gemini 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 — 135 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Second Opinion — Gemini (explicit / fallback engine)
Get an independent second opinion from Google's Gemini Pro. This model has a completely different architecture and training from Claude, making it genuinely useful for catching blind spots, validating reasoning on edge cases, or surfacing trade-offs you might miss.
This is NOT the default second-opinion engine. Generic second-opinion requests route to the default second-opinion skill. Use this Gemini skill only when:
- The user explicitly asks for Gemini ("ask Gemini", "Gemini's take", "what does Gemini think").
- The user says "ask both" — run this and the default
second-opinionskill, then synthesize all three views (yours + the default engine's + Gemini's). - The default engine was reported unavailable and the user wants the alternate independent voice.
Gemini has full read access to the project — it can read files, grep code, and explore the codebase. Its project instructions (GEMINI.md) tell it to prime itself on the key docs before answering. You provide the specific question and any focused context; Gemini handles the rest.
Model selection
Pinned to gemini-3.1-pro-preview by default for quality (smaller models give weaker second opinions; not worth the false confidence they create).
When Google deprecates the preview pin — preview models rotate fast — override per-session or globally:
export CLAUDE_SECOND_OPINION_MODEL=gemini-3.2-pro # or whatever the current Pro-tier model is
Every invocation below uses the bash pattern ${CLAUDE_SECOND_OPINION_MODEL:-gemini-3.1-pro-preview} — the env var wins if set, otherwise the pinned default.
Do not fall back to a smaller/older model when the pin breaks. Report unavailability and continue with Claude-only analysis.
Process
Step 1: Prepare the Prompt
Gemini has NO access to your conversation history, but it CAN read project files. Structure your prompt as:
- Scope (optional) — by default Gemini primes on the whole project. If the question is about one module or component, name it so Gemini reads the right files first (e.g., "This is about the auth module" — detect the relevant module from the file paths you've been working in).
- The question — what exactly you want Gemini to weigh in on
- Your current thinking (recommended) — share your position so Gemini can challenge it
- 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 ships with it
1 file 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.
- 1mo ago First seen · 135 lines · 159 tokens per session scan A 82299db4ffbe
second-opinion-gemini is a skill published in the GitHub repository peterkrueck/Claude-Code-Development-Kit (1,388 stars, last pushed 3mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 159 tokens to every session and 2,150 once invoked, about $0.0006 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…