second-opinion

Second Opinion

Steps

Step 1 — Anchor, then route

When there's no concrete anchor (a specific edit, chosen option, or phrasing under review), ask the user for one.

Route by what the proposal needs:

The proposal needs	Run	Pass it as
"Is this worth doing? what am I missing?"	sanity-checker	Subject
"Is there a better option, and how does mine rank?"	propose-alternatives	Current approach
Want both, or high-stakes and unsure	both, in parallel	as above

When ambiguous, default to sanity-checker — the cheaper, more common need.

Brief each agent with: the file path / surrounding context and constraints; the proposal verbatim and the problem it solves; alternatives the user already ruled out, with reasons.

Step 2 — Synthesize only what ran

Present the chat output under a Second opinion: heading, including only the parts whose agent ran:

• Table (only if propose-alternatives ran) — proposal plus alternatives in one confidence frame, ordered by confidence:

  #	Option	Tradeoff	Conf.
  1	Proposal — [content]	…	0.xx
  2	Alt — [content]	…	0.xx

• Worth-it verdict (only if sanity-checker ran) — [verdict] — [blind spots and open concerns | none].

• Disagreement (only if both ran) — [what they split on for keep-vs-replace: propose-alternatives ranks an alternative above the proposal while sanity-checker calls it sound, or the reverse | none — they agreed].

• Recommendation — [your pick] — [brief reasoning] (confidence 0.xx, distinct from the agents'). Spot-check the load-bearing claims behind your pick against the cited code first.

• Checkpoint — call AskUserQuestion with the top 2–3 options.