| name | second-opinion |
| description | Second opinion on one concrete proposal: stress-test it, rank alternatives, or both. TRIGGER when: user says 'second opinion', '2nd opinion', 'rate my fix', or 'weigh in on my approach'; user wants a candidate edit/decision evaluated. SKIP when: multiple decisions on a larger artifact — use `validate-answer`. |
Second Opinion
Steps
Step 1 — Anchor, then route
When there's no concrete anchor (a specific edit, chosen option, or phrasing under review), ask the user for one.
Route by what the proposal needs:
| The proposal needs | Run | Pass it as |
|---|
| "Is this worth doing? what am I missing?" | sanity-checker | Subject |
| "Is there a better option, and how does mine rank?" | propose-alternatives | Current approach |
| Want both, or high-stakes and unsure | both, in parallel | as above |
When ambiguous, default to sanity-checker — the cheaper, more common need.
Brief each agent with: the file path / surrounding context and constraints; the proposal verbatim and the problem it solves; alternatives the user already ruled out, with reasons.
Step 2 — Synthesize only what ran
Present the chat output under a Second opinion: heading, including only the parts whose agent ran:
-
Table (only if propose-alternatives ran) — proposal plus alternatives in one confidence frame, ordered by confidence:
| # | Option | Tradeoff | Conf. |
|---|
| 1 | Proposal — [content] | … | 0.xx |
| 2 | Alt — [content] | … | 0.xx |
-
Worth-it verdict (only if sanity-checker ran) — [verdict] — [blind spots and open concerns | none].
-
Disagreement (only if both ran) — [what they split on for keep-vs-replace: propose-alternatives ranks an alternative above the proposal while sanity-checker calls it sound, or the reverse | none — they agreed].
-
Recommendation — [your pick] — [brief reasoning] (confidence 0.xx, distinct from the agents'). Spot-check the load-bearing claims behind your pick against the cited code first.
-
Checkpoint — call AskUserQuestion with the top 2–3 options.
