| name | second-opinion |
| description | Get an independent cross-model second opinion (GLM-5.2 via opencode) on a specific, load-bearing technical claim or a Critical code-review finding — a different model reads the claim + code and returns AGREE / DISAGREE / UNSURE. Use to stress-test a single Critical finding, a risky assertion, or a close call before you commit to it. Auto-fired inside /pr-review on each Critical finding that survives the skeptic. Not for open-ended research (use /deep-research) or multi-lens judgement (use /llm-council). |
| argument-hint | <a claim to test, optionally with a file:line to pull context from> |
Second Opinion (cross-model)
Input: $ARGUMENTS
Ask a different model — GLM-5.2, run through the local opencode CLI on the OpenCode
Go subscription — to independently judge one concrete claim. Claude and GLM fail in
different ways; a second architecture disagreeing is a real signal, an agreement is
corroboration. This is the on-demand cross-model diversity the harness reserves for
high-stakes calls (research.md locked decision: no standing consensus voting — the
adversarial skeptic already beats that; bring GLM only when it pays).
The model is GLM-5.2 on OpenCode Go (opencode-go/glm-5.2) — the top open-weight coder
as of build time, ~1/6 Claude's cost, vetted full-precision weights on the Go plan. The
slug was confirmed live against opencode's own catalog when this skill was built.
Operating rules
- Interactive-only, degrades to a no-op.
opencode is a local CLI, absent from CI
runners (and unfunded / rate-limited plans, and offline). Every one of those returns
UNAVAILABLE and the skill says so and moves on — it never blocks, never invents a
verdict, never treats "couldn't ask" as "disagreed." Same CI-fallback discipline as the
audit skills: when the tool isn't there, the work still completes without it.
- Never force a decision. A GLM verdict is input, not a gate. It never auto-merges,
auto-drops a finding, or overrides Claude's own judgement — it surfaces a second view for
a human to weigh.
- One claim per call. Feed a single, self-contained finding + its code. GLM judges only
from the text you send it — no repo access — so include the cited hunk.
How it runs — the helper
The mechanics (invoke opencode, parse its JSONL event stream, extract the verdict, degrade
on any failure) live in a deterministic helper so nothing is left to per-run improvisation:
node .claude/skills/second-opinion/second-opinion.mjs <<'FINDING'
<the finding dossier: title · severity · repo/path:line · the claimed defect · the cited code/diff hunk>
FINDING
It reads the dossier from stdin (no argv length / quoting limits — diffs are safe),
prompts GLM as an independent skeptic, and prints one line of JSON to stdout, always
exiting 0:
| Field | Meaning |
|---|
status | OK (a verdict was obtained) or UNAVAILABLE (opencode absent / capped / errored / unparseable) |
verdict | AGREE · DISAGREE · UNSURE (only when status: OK) |
confidence | high · medium · low |
reasoning | ≤ 2 sentences citing the specific code |
reason | why it degraded (only when status: UNAVAILABLE) |
model | the slug used |
Options: --model <slug> (default opencode-go/glm-5.2; swap only to a live opencode slug),
--timeout <ms> (default 180000). GLM is verbose/slow — the timeout is a backstop that
yields UNAVAILABLE, never a hang.
Interpreting the verdict
| Result | What it means | What to do |
|---|
OK · AGREE | An independent model confirms the defect and the severity. | Corroborated — state that the finding is cross-model confirmed. |
OK · DISAGREE | GLM argues the code is correct / the severity inflated / the claim unsupported. | Mark the finding CONTESTED; surface both verdicts (Claude's + GLM's reasoning) and let the human decide. Do not silently drop it and do not force a merge. |
OK · UNSURE | The context couldn't decide it. | Note it; the finding stands as Claude's review already ruled. |
| UNAVAILABLE | No second opinion was obtained. | Say so in one line (with the reason); the finding stands unchanged. Never read this as agreement or disagreement. |
Standalone use
For a /second-opinion <claim> invocation outside a review:
- Build the dossier: the claim in one line, plus — if
$ARGUMENTS names a file:line or a
snippet — read that context and include the relevant hunk so GLM judges the real code.
- Run the helper.
- Report your read of the claim and GLM's verdict side by side. On
DISAGREE,
present both cases and recommend how to resolve; on UNAVAILABLE, answer from your own
analysis and note the second opinion wasn't reachable.
Inside /pr-review
/pr-review Phase 6 fires this on each Critical finding that survives the adversarial
skeptic (interactive runs only). The contract there is identical: DISAGREE → the finding
is tagged CONTESTED with both verdicts shown, the recommendation is never forced, and
UNAVAILABLE leaves the finding exactly as the skeptic left it.
