# Advisor

> Gets an independent second opinion from a different-provider model — not the one currently working — on a plan, a diff, or an open question, without gating or auto-deciding anything. Use before committing to a risky or expensive plan, when stuck on a hard technical decision, or whenever a genuinely different reasoning process would help sanity-check the current approach.

- Skill: `jsvillalbat/advisor` (Agent Skill, multi-file: 2 files)
- Install (CLI): `npx skillmds@latest add jsvillalbat/advisor`
- Raw SKILL.md: https://api.skillmd.com/api/skills/jsvillalbat/advisor/raw
- Safety review: pending
- Works with: Claude Code, Claude.ai, OpenAI Codex
- Category: AI & ML
- Author: jsvillalbat (https://skillmd.com/u/jsvillalbat)
- Updated: 2026-09-17
- Page: https://skillmd.com/skills/jsvillalbat/advisor

---


# 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 `references/brief-template.md`.

2. **Check what's available.** Look for a different-provider CLI (`which codex`,
   `which gemini`, or similar). It must be a genuinely different model family than
   whatever produced the plan/diff being reviewed — a second instance of the same
   model isn't independent, however fresh its context.

3. **If nothing is available, degrade honestly — don't skip silently.** Say plainly
   that no second-provider access exists. Do one of:
   - a deliberate cold review yourself (see `verify-before-done`'s
     `references/independent-review.md` for the cold-read protocol), or
   - hand the user the brief you wrote and let them paste it into another tool
     themselves.

4. **Invoke it and read the response critically.** Don't adopt the advisor's opinion
   uncritically, and don't dismiss it because it's inconvenient. If it disagrees with
   the current plan, that disagreement is the useful part — surface it explicitly to
   the user rather than quietly picking a side.

5. **Report the opinion and the reconciliation, not just "got a second opinion."**
   State what the advisor said, where it agrees or disagrees with the current
   approach, and what you're doing as a result (adopting its suggestion, keeping the
   original approach with a stated reason, or flagging the disagreement for the user
   to decide).

## Edge cases

- **The advisor's answer is generic or unhelpful.** The brief probably wasn't specific
  enough — tighten the question and try again rather than reporting a non-answer as
  "consulted, no issues found."
- **The advisor and the reviewer/judge disagree with each other, not just with you.**
  Don't average the opinions — report the actual disagreement; it's signal, not noise.
- **This is a routine, low-stakes decision.** Don't reach for this — advisor exists
  for calls where being wrong is expensive, not as a rubber stamp for every plan.

## Reference files

- `references/brief-template.md` — a fill-in-the-blanks template for writing a
  precise, self-contained brief for the advisor.