# Discuss > Think a problem through with pi as a second opinion, over as many turns as it takes - Skill: `larrystanley/discuss` (Agent Skill) - Install (CLI): `npx skillmds@latest add larrystanley/discuss` - Raw SKILL.md: https://api.skillmd.com/api/skills/larrystanley/discuss/raw - Safety review: pending - Works with: Claude Code, Claude.ai, OpenAI Codex - Category: Coding & Dev Tools - Author: LarryStanley (https://skillmd.com/u/larrystanley) - Updated: 2026-09-17 - Page: https://skillmd.com/skills/larrystanley/discuss --- The user wants to talk through: $ARGUMENTS Not a delegation and not a review — a conversation. pi writes nothing at all here; the output is what it thinks, and the reason to want that is simply that it is a different model and will not have made the same assumption you did. Which means the one way to waste this: asking a question you already know the answer to and reporting agreement. Use it where you are genuinely unsure, or where you want your own reasoning attacked. ## The first turn Write a task book to a temp file. Put the real question in it, along with the paths of any files that matter — pi can read them, and a question about code it cannot see gets you an answer about code in general: ```bash DIR=$(mktemp -d) cat > "$DIR/TASK.md" <<'EOF' Relevant files: Answer in under 800 characters. Do not write or modify any file. If you disagree with a premise in the question, say that first — it is more useful than answering the question as asked. EOF echo "$DIR" ``` Dispatch with `pi_dispatch`: `task_file="$DIR/TASK.md"`, `cwd` = the repo root, `tools="read"`, `mode="sync"`. `tools="read"` with no write and no edit — there is nothing to write, and a discussion that quietly edits a file is not a discussion. The 800-character limit is not only context economy. A model given room to monologue will fill it, and length reads as confidence whether or not any is warranted. A short answer is easier to disagree with, which is the point. pi's reply comes back as the verdict's `last_message`. If it says it was truncated, get the rest with `pi_transcript session_id= filter=text` — that reply is budgeted too. ## Following up Keep the `session_id`. To continue, dispatch again with **`resume_session_id` set to it** — pi keeps the previous turns, so the new task book carries only the new message, not a re-statement of everything so far: ``` pi_dispatch(task_file=, cwd=, tools="read", mode="sync", resume_session_id="") ``` Resuming is refused while a dispatch is still running, and refused for an id that was never dispatched — in both cases loudly, with the valid ids listed. A silent fresh session would mean a perfectly fluent answer from something that had forgotten the conversation. Between turns, put the disagreement to it rather than the next question. "You assumed X; here is why X does not hold" gets further in one turn than three rounds of clarification. ## Reporting back Give the user pi's actual position, not a summary that sands off the disagreement. If pi contradicts you, say so plainly and say which of you you think is right and why — that judgment is the thing you are for, and hiding a disagreement behind "pi suggests considering..." wastes the whole exchange. If pi is simply wrong, say that too. A second opinion is worth having partly because it can be checked, and a check you never report is a check you did not do. ## What this is not It does not carry over into a dispatch. If the conversation lands on a plan, that plan becomes a task book, written deliberately — pi's discussion session is not an instruction to itself, and treating a conversation as an implicit contract is how a dispatch ends up building something nobody agreed to.