advisorlisted

# Advisor A second opinion from the same model family — even a fresh context — tends to agree with the first opinion more often than a genuinely independent reasoning process would. This skill gets an actual second opinion: a different model provider, asked a precise question, with no obligation to follow its answer. This is the lightweight, on-demand cousin of [`codex-judge`](../codex-judge): `codex-judge` is a formal, rubric-scored gate for a post-review completion decision; `advisor` is for anything else — a plan, a hard call, an open question — where you want a genuine outside view but nothing should be auto-approved or auto-rejected. ## When to use this - Before committing to a plan that's expensive or hard to reverse. - You're stuck between two approaches and want a reasoning process that isn't anchored on the same assumptions you already have. - The user explicitly asks for "a second opinion" or "what would another model say." - Not for routine decisions — reserve it for calls where being wrong is costly enough that the extra step earns its keep. ## Instructions 1. **Write a precise, self-contained brief.** The advisor gets nothing from this conversation except what you give it. Include: the goal, the relevant constraints, the actual plan/diff/question, and a specific question — "what am I missing", "is there a simpler approach", "what would break under load" — not a vague "thoughts?". A vague brief gets a vague, unhelpful answer back. See `refere