From claude-resources
Gets a second opinion from OpenAI Codex CLI during planning to validate approaches, identify risks, and suggest alternatives.
How this skill is triggered — by the user, by Claude, or both
Slash command
/claude-resources:codex-2ndThis skill is limited to the following tools:
The summary Claude sees in its skill listing — used to decide when to auto-load this skill
Get a second opinion from the codex plugin companion script on a plan, approach, or codebase exploration. Codex reads workspace files and does web research to provide an independent perspective.
Get a second opinion from the codex plugin companion script on a plan, approach, or codebase exploration. Codex reads workspace files and does web research to provide an independent perspective.
The codex plugin provides a companion script for running tasks. Resolve it dynamically:
CODEX_PLUGIN_ROOT=$(command ls -d "$HOME/.claude/plugins/cache/openai-codex/codex"/*/ 2>/dev/null | sort -V | tail -1)
CODEX_COMPANION="${CODEX_PLUGIN_ROOT}scripts/codex-companion.mjs"
If the file does not exist, report "Codex plugin not installed — skipping second opinion" and continue without it.
Usage for second opinion tasks:
node "$CODEX_COMPANION" task "<prompt>"
The task command runs Codex in read-only mode by default (no --write flag).
Before doing anything, check if Codex is currently rate-limited:
RATE_CHECK=$(node $HOME/.claude/scripts/codex-rate-limit.js check 2>&1)
RATE_EXIT=$?
If RATE_EXIT is non-zero (rate-limited), silently fall back to Opus (see Step 5 Fallback). Do NOT report the rate limit to the user or pause the workflow.
Construct a prompt that includes:
You are reviewing a development plan. Provide a second opinion.
## Context
<what the project is, what repo we're in>
## Current Plan
<the plan or approach being considered>
## Questions
1. Are there any risks, edge cases, or issues with this approach?
2. Is there a simpler or better alternative?
3. Are there any files or areas of the codebase that should be considered but aren't mentioned?
4. Any other suggestions or concerns?
Be concise and practical. Focus on actionable feedback. If the plan looks solid, say so briefly — don't invent problems.
LOGDIR=$(node $HOME/.claude/scripts/get-logdir.js)
mkdir -p "$LOGDIR"
DATETIME=$(date +%Y%m%d_%H%M%S)
# Resolve codex companion script
CODEX_PLUGIN_ROOT=$(command ls -d "$HOME/.claude/plugins/cache/openai-codex/codex"/*/ 2>/dev/null | sort -V | tail -1)
CODEX_COMPANION="${CODEX_PLUGIN_ROOT}scripts/codex-companion.mjs"
# Detect timeout command (gtimeout on macOS via coreutils, timeout on Linux/WSL)
if command -v gtimeout &>/dev/null; then
TIMEOUT_CMD="gtimeout"
elif command -v timeout &>/dev/null; then
TIMEOUT_CMD="timeout"
else
TIMEOUT_CMD=""
echo "WARNING: neither gtimeout nor timeout found. Running without timeout."
fi
${TIMEOUT_CMD:+$TIMEOUT_CMD} ${TIMEOUT_CMD:+1500} node "$CODEX_COMPANION" task \
"<prompt>" \
> "$LOGDIR/${DATETIME}-codex-2nd.md" \
2>"$LOGDIR/${DATETIME}-codex-2nd-stderr.log"
Timeout: 25 minutes.
Check for rate limiting in output files:
node $HOME/.claude/scripts/codex-rate-limit.js check-output \
"$LOGDIR/${DATETIME}-codex-2nd.md" \
"$LOGDIR/${DATETIME}-codex-2nd-stderr.log"
If rate limit detected, jump to Step 5 Fallback (Opus second opinion).
Read the output file
If empty or missing, check stderr log for errors
If codex timed out or failed, jump to Step 5 Fallback
Return the codex feedback to the caller. The caller decides whether to incorporate it into the plan.
If codex was rate-limited, timed out, or produced no usable output, silently fall back to Opus. Spawn one general-purpose subagent with model: opus to give the same second opinion the codex prompt would have produced. The caller still gets advisory feedback — no quota-loud failure mode, no missing second opinion.
Agent tool:
description: "Opus 2nd opinion (codex fallback)"
subagent_type: "general-purpose"
model: "opus"
prompt: <same second-opinion prompt that would have gone to codex — plan/context + the standard questions>
Return the subagent's feedback to the caller exactly as if it came from codex. Do NOT mention the fallback to the user — silent means silent.
model: opus — the caller always gets a second opinion, just from Opus instead of codex when codex is down. Opus is the designated Claude-side stand-in for codex throughout these skillsThese skills call /codex-2nd during their planning phase:
/codex-2nd with the updated plan (up to 3 iterations total)~ in paths — use $HOMEnpx claudepluginhub takazudo/claude-resources --plugin claude-resourcesGets a second opinion from GitHub Copilot CLI on plans or approaches during /x-as-pr or /x-wt-teams planning. Returns actionable feedback or gracefully skips if unavailable.
Cross-model review using OpenAI Codex to independently verify plans or code diffs, iterating up to 5 rounds. Useful for architecture decisions, non-trivial refactors, and critical config changes.
Runs OpenAI Codex CLI as a subagent for second opinions, code reviews, and questions. Useful when you want a different AI model's perspective.