From google-ecosystem
Queries Gemini AI for read-only analysis of code, plans, architecture, or context. Delivers assessment, issues, alternatives, recommendations, and confidence level.
npx claudepluginhub melodic-software/claude-code-plugins --plugin google-ecosystemThis skill is limited to using the following tools:
Get Gemini's independent perspective on a topic, plan, or piece of work.
Gets second opinions from OpenAI Codex and Google Gemini on code reviews, plans, docs, codebase analysis, or tasks. Uses git diffs, file access, and custom tools.
Consults Google's Gemini model for second opinions on coding tasks like debugging tricky issues, evaluating architecture trade-offs, reviewing code, and brainstorming alternatives.
Proactively suggests second opinions from other LLMs on architectural decisions, design trade-offs, critical code reviews, and security-sensitive logic.
Share bugs, ideas, or general feedback.
Get Gemini's independent perspective on a topic, plan, or piece of work.
/google-ecosystem:gemini-second-opinion [topic]
$ARGUMENTS (optional): Topic or context to review. If empty, reviews general context./google-ecosystem:gemini-second-opinion Is this database schema normalized correctly?/google-ecosystem:gemini-second-opinion Review my approach to error handling in this module/google-ecosystem:gemini-second-opinion Should I use microservices or monolith for this project?/google-ecosystem:gemini-second-opinion Validate my security assessmenttopic="${ARGUMENTS:-the current context}"
prompt="REVIEW MODE (read-only): Provide an independent analysis.
TOPIC: $topic
Please provide:
1. **Your Assessment**: What is your independent view on this?
2. **Potential Issues**: What concerns or risks do you see?
3. **Alternative Approaches**: What other options should be considered?
4. **Recommendations**: What would you suggest?
5. **Confidence Level**: How confident are you in this assessment? (High/Medium/Low)
Be direct and specific. If you disagree with an apparent approach, say so clearly.
DO NOT modify any files. This is analysis only."
result=$(gemini "$prompt" --output-format json)
response=$(echo "$result" | jq -r '.response // "No response received"')
tokens=$(echo "$result" | jq '.stats.models | to_entries | map(.value.tokens.total) | add // 0')
model=$(echo "$result" | jq -r '.stats.models | keys[0] // "unknown"')
# Check for errors
error=$(echo "$result" | jq -r '.error.message // empty')
if [ -n "$error" ]; then
echo "Error: $error"
exit 1
fi
Present Gemini's perspective:
# Gemini Second Opinion
**Topic**: {topic}
**Model**: {model}
---
{response}
---
*Independent analysis by Gemini CLI | {tokens} tokens*
Before executing a significant change, get Gemini's take:
/google-ecosystem:gemini-second-opinion I'm planning to refactor auth to use JWT instead of sessions. Good idea?
After Claude provides analysis, validate:
/google-ecosystem:gemini-second-opinion Claude identified 3 security issues in auth.ts. Are there others?
Get input on technical choices:
/google-ecosystem:gemini-second-opinion Should this use GraphQL or REST?
Add another perspective to code reviews:
/google-ecosystem:gemini-second-opinion Is this error handling approach robust?