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/photostructure/coding-skills/second-opinionnpx skills add photostructure/coding-skills --skill second-opiniongit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/photostructure/coding-skillsWrote 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/photostructure/coding-skills/second-opinion)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/photostructure/coding-skills/second-opinion"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/photostructure/coding-skills/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 | $0.00073 | $0.03438 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00036 | $0.01719 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00015 | $0.00688 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00007 | $0.00344 |
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 3d 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 — 300 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Second Opinion
Two reviews, from two different models, then evidence decides. You review the code yourself — you know what the change was supposed to do. A different model reviews it independently, with no access to your reasoning. Then every finding from either pass is accepted or vetoed against ground truth.
Two failure modes motivate this:
- A green test suite is not proof of correctness. Implementers satisfice: they code until their own tests pass. Semantic mismatches with the spec, stateful-API gotchas, and edge cases the tests never pin all survive.
- Reviewers are confidently wrong, too. Every review pass mixes real bugs with plausible-but-wrong findings. Accepting blindly injects regressions; vetoing blindly ships the bugs.
A second opinion from the same model shares your blind spots. Cross-model is the point: different training, different priors, different failure modes.
Leaf-mode guard
If the task identifies your role as leaf-reviewer or sets
delegation-budget: 0, do not run this gate. Read and follow
../review/references/single-pass.md,
complete one review yourself, return the report to the caller, and stop.
1. Scope the gate
Before launching anything, write down:
- The diff range — commit range, staged diff, or working-tree diff, plus the file list. Both reviews get exactly the same scope.
- The substantive intent — the task, accepted plan, specification excerpt, or change description that states what the content must do. Include a proposed Conventional Commit message when one exists, but label it as commit metadata, not a requirement. Do not draft a message merely to create a correctness boundary for the review.
- Pasted context — plan or TPP excerpts, settled decisions the reviewer must not re-litigate, and the project's own review exclusions. Paste their text into the prompt. A spawned CLI cannot chase references or basenames; anything absent from the prompt does not exist for it.
- The ground truth — the thing a disputed finding can be tested against: a reference implementation you can execute, a spec with runnable examples, the real API. Write the exact command to query it. No executable ground truth? Say so, and name the fallback (spec text, maintainer ruling).
- A scrutiny list — the 3-6 riskiest spots you'd check first: stateful APIs, encoding boundaries, off-by-one-prone length math, error paths, concurrency. It aims the reviewer without capping them.
What ships with it
3 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.
- 3d ago First seen · 300 lines · 73 tokens per session scan A f246980ac68c
second-opinion is a skill published in the GitHub repository photostructure/coding-skills (3 stars, last pushed 4d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 73 tokens to every session and 3,438 once invoked, about $0.0004 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
decision-records
Creates, supersedes and validates decision records (ADRs) against the convention a collection already follows, instead of imposing a published one. Use when the user wants to record a decision, write an ADR, supersede an existing decision, audit or lint a decisions folder, check that an ADR index is in sync, or asks…
github-pr-review
Handles PR review comments and feedback resolution. Use when user wants to resolve PR comments, handle review feedback, fix review comments, address PR review, check review status, respond to reviewer, verify PR readiness, review PR comments, analyze review feedback, evaluate PR comments, assess review suggestions, or…
privacy-guard
Prevents private infrastructure details (node hostnames, internal project names, local usernames and personal emails, absolute home paths, private and VPN IP ranges) from leaking into public repositories through commits, PRs, docs or release artifacts. Use when working in a public or soon-to-be-public repo, before…
github-pr-creation
Creates GitHub Pull Requests with automated validation and task tracking. Use when user wants to create PR, open pull request, submit for review, or check if ready for PR. Analyzes commits, validates task completion, generates Conventional Commits title and description, suggests labels. NOTE - for merging existing…
github-pr-merge
Merges GitHub Pull Requests after validating pre-merge checklist. Use when user wants to merge PR, close PR, finalize PR, complete merge, approve and merge, or execute merge. Runs pre-merge validation (tests, lint, CI, comments), confirms with user, merges with proper format, handles post-merge cleanup.
git-commit
Creates git commits following Conventional Commits format with type/scope/subject. Use when user wants to commit changes, create commit, save work, or stage and commit. Enforces project-specific conventions from CLAUDE.md.