Second Opinion

Run an independent code review without changing the repo.

When to use it

• non-trivial code changes
• risky refactors
• security, performance, or concurrency-sensitive edits
• schema or API changes
• before opening or merging a PR
• when the user explicitly wants another model's view

When to skip it

• docs-only or formatting-only changes, unless the user still wants it
• repos or diffs that must not be sent to external services
• empty diffs

If repository guidance or user instructions forbid sending code to third-party tools, stop and ask before proceeding.

Infer the request first

Infer as much as possible from the user's message:

• scope: uncommitted, branch diff, commit, or PR
• focus: general, security, performance, error handling, architecture, or a custom concern

Ask one concise follow-up only if a missing detail blocks the run.

Read only what you need

• Read references/workflow.md for scope detection, diff sizing, review-brief construction, and synthesis rules.
• Read references/codex.md for the Codex CLI commands and flags.

Core workflow

1. Detect the scope and compute diff stats.
2. Stop on empty diffs.
3. Warn on large diffs and suggest narrowing scope before spending tokens.
4. Build a short review brief that tells the reviewer:
   • what changed
   • what to focus on
   • how to inspect the diff locally
   • that the review is read-only
   • what output format to return
5. Run the Codex review.
6. Present Codex's findings first, then where you agree and disagree with them.
7. Never auto-apply suggested fixes unless the user explicitly asks.

Safety defaults

• Keep the review read-only.
• Do not commit, push, stage, or edit files as part of the second opinion run.
• Prefer tool-native review commands over manual diff pasting when the tool can inspect the repo directly.
• Prefer prompt files or stdin over fragile one-line shell quoting for long review briefs.
• Use explicit timeouts and capture output cleanly when automating external review CLIs.
• Clean up temporary prompt and output files after reading them.

Review result format

Present results in this order:

1. Codex's findings, highest severity first.
2. Explicit No findings if Codex returns nothing substantive.
3. A short synthesis:
   • where you agree with Codex
   • where you disagree, and why
   • what looks worth acting on first

Keep the synthesis separate from the raw reviewer output so the user can distinguish the outside opinion from your judgment.