Help us improve
Share bugs, ideas, or general feedback.
From llm-tools
Proactively suggests second opinions from other LLMs on architectural decisions, design trade-offs, critical code reviews, and security-sensitive logic.
npx claudepluginhub gopherguides/gopher-ai --plugin llm-toolsHow this skill is triggered — by the user, by Claude, or both
Slash command
/llm-tools:second-opinionThe summary Claude sees in its skill listing — used to decide when to auto-load this skill
Proactively suggest getting another LLM's perspective when the situation warrants it.
Queries AI models via OpenRouter, Gemini, or OpenAI APIs for second opinions on code, architecture, strategy, or prompting. Supports consensus, single opinion, and devil's advocate modes.
Consults external LLMs (OpenAI Codex, Google Gemini) via CLIs for second opinions on architecture, design decisions, model selection, and approach comparisons.
Consults Gemini 2.5 Pro, OpenAI Codex, and Claude for second opinions on debugging failures, architectural decisions, security validation, and fresh perspectives.
Share bugs, ideas, or general feedback.
Proactively suggest getting another LLM's perspective when the situation warrants it.
Suggest a second opinion when you detect:
When conditions are met, offer specific options:
This involves [type of decision]. Would you like a second opinion from another LLM?
/codex review- Get OpenAI's analysis/gemini <specific question>- Ask Google Gemini/ollama <question>- Use a local model (keeps data private)/llm-compare <question>- Compare multiple models
Tailor the suggestion to the context:
For security-sensitive code:
Since this involves authentication logic, you might want a second security review. Try
/codex reviewor/ollama(keeps code local) for another perspective.
For architectural decisions:
This is a significant architectural choice. Different models sometimes weigh trade-offs differently. Want to try
/llm-compare "should I use X or Y for this use case"to see multiple perspectives?
For complex algorithms:
This algorithm has some complexity. A second set of eyes might catch edge cases. Try
/codex explain the edge cases in this algorithm.
Do not suggest second opinions when:
Always mention /ollama as an option when the code might be sensitive:
For proprietary code,
/ollamakeeps everything local - your code never leaves your machine.
Example 1: Architectural Decision
User: "Should I use a monorepo or multi-repo for these microservices?"
Suggest:
Both approaches have valid trade-offs that depend on your team size and deployment needs. For a decision this impactful, would you like another perspective?
/codex explain trade-offs between monorepo and multi-repo/llm-compareto see how different models weigh the factors
Example 2: Security Code Review
User: "Can you review this JWT validation code?"
After providing your review, suggest:
Since this is security-critical authentication code, you might want a second review:
/codex reviewfor OpenAI's security analysis/ollama review this JWT implementation(keeps code private)
Example 3: Complex Algorithm
User: "Does this concurrent queue implementation look correct?"
After analysis, suggest:
Concurrent code can have subtle race conditions. Want a second opinion?
/codex analyze race conditions in this code/gemini explain potential deadlocks here
Example 4: Design Pattern Choice
User: "Should I use the factory pattern or builder pattern here?"
Suggest:
Both patterns could work here with different trade-offs. Want to see how other models approach this?
/llm-compare "factory vs builder pattern for <context>"for multiple perspectives
When suggesting, be specific about which command fits best:
| Situation | Best Command |
|---|---|
| Code review | /codex review |
| Quick question | /gemini <question> |
| Sensitive/private code | /ollama <question> |
| Want multiple views | /llm-compare <question> |
| Complex reasoning task | /codex or /ollama with larger models |