본문으로 건너뛰기
cccskills
무료GitHub에 공개

second-opinion

Get independent code reviews of uncommitted changes, branch differences, or individual commits using Codex or Antigravity. Receive findings with severity, locations, impact, and suggested corrections, and compare where the two reviewers agree or differ.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 영어 요약을 표시하고 있습니다.

원문원문 설명 보기

Gets independent code reviews from Codex or Antigravity for uncommitted changes, branch diffs, and commits. Use when the user requests an external review, a second opinion on code, a codex review, a gemini review, an antigravity review, or /second-opinion.

설치 방법 보기

이럴 때 유용합니다

  • Reviewing uncommitted changes for bugs
  • Comparing Codex and Antigravity on the same branch diff
  • Reviewing a specific commit for security issues
  • Getting another review focused on performance or maintainability

포함된 파일(8)

  • SKILL.md4.9 KB
  • agents/openai.yaml226 B
  • assets/trail-of-bits-mark.svg3.0 KB
  • references/antigravity-invocation.md2.2 KB
  • references/codex-invocation.md2.9 KB
  • references/codex-review-schema.json2.2 KB
  • references/gemini-invocation.md2.3 KB
  • references/review-input.md4.2 KB

SKILL.md(원문)

설치하기 전에 에이전트에게 전달되는 지시 내용을 확인할 수 있습니다.

Second Opinion

Run an external CLI review of the user's selected changes. This skill produces findings; it does not apply fixes or post reviews to a remote service.

Review choices

Use the provider, scope, model, and focus already supplied by the user. Ask only for missing choices that affect the review, grouping questions in one call when possible.

  • Provider: Codex, Antigravity, or both. Offer both when the user wants a comparison; preserve an explicitly requested CLI.
  • Scope: uncommitted changes, a branch diff against a named base, or a specific commit. Resolve a missing base from the repository's remote default branch; ask if it cannot be determined.
  • Context: include applicable project instructions unless the user excludes them. Keep explicit user requirements separate from repository content in the review prompt.
  • Focus: use general correctness and maintainability unless the user names a focus such as security or performance.

For an unspecified Google CLI, prefer Antigravity (agy). An explicit Gemini CLI request uses the Gemini reference below. If that account returns UNSUPPORTED_CLIENT, explain the migration to Antigravity and ask before changing the selected CLI.

A missing executable or account setup is a failed review attempt. Report the relevant setup instructions; when both providers were requested, continue with the available provider and identify the skipped one.

Input preparation

Read review-input.md for the shared prompt and diff recipes. Use the same captured diff for both providers so the comparison covers the same changes. Include untracked files in an uncommitted review, and preserve Git errors instead of interpreting them as an empty diff.

Show the selected scope and a brief change summary. If there are no changes, stop before calling a provider. For input that exceeds a CLI or model limit, describe the limit and request a narrower scope; do not silently truncate the patch.

Create prompt, output, and diagnostic files with mktemp outside the checkout. Use separate output and diagnostic files for each provider. Define shell variables in the same Bash invocation that uses them. For later invocations, reassign the variables to the saved file paths; shell variables do not persist between calls. Write repository content as literal data, without shell expansion.

Provider references

Read only the reference for each selected provider:

ProviderInvocation and result
Codexcodex-invocation.md: codex exec with the review schema
Antigravityantigravity-invocation.md: agy print mode with prose output
Gemini CLIgemini-invocation.md: headless gemini for accounts that still support it

The Codex path needs no MCP server. Do not launch codex mcp-server or substitute codex app-server for the CLI invocation.

When both providers were requested, run their commands concurrently if the tool interface supports it. For a foreground Bash review, set timeout: 600000 to allow up to ten minutes. Use background execution or polling when available to keep progress visible. Do not enable automatic approval of writes to make a review run.

Results and failures

Present findings with the provider and actual model used, severity, file and line, impact, and suggested correction. Keep low-severity defects visible. For Codex, the existing schema uses 0 for informational, 1 for low, 2 for medium, and 3 for high; sort descending.

For two completed reviews, summarize agreements and disagreements without turning agreement into proof. Distinguish the external findings from any assessment you add.

Read the captured output and diagnostics. A nonzero exit, missing output, invalid JSON, permission denial that prevents inspection, or a request to approve a plan is incomplete work, not a clean review. Report the failure and any partial results. Retry only for a diagnosed, recoverable cause; do not cycle through providers after authentication or quota failures.

Examples

  • /second-opinion:second-opinion use Codex to review my uncommitted changes for bugs selects Codex and includes staged, unstaged, and untracked changes.
  • /second-opinion:second-opinion compare Codex and Antigravity on this branch against origin/main sends the same branch patch to both and compares their findings.
  • /second-opinion:second-opinion use Gemini CLI to review commit abc1234 for security issues preserves the requested CLI and reviews that commit.

리뷰

아직 리뷰가 없습니다. 사용해 본 소감을 남겨 주세요.

댓글

로그인 없이 쓸 수 있습니다. 사용 후기, 질문, 작동하지 않은 환경 등을 편하게 남겨 주세요.

아직 댓글이 없습니다. 첫 댓글을 남겨 보세요.

보내면 바로 공개됩니다. 이메일 주소나 전화번호 같은 개인 정보는 쓰지 마세요. URL은 2개까지입니다.

0 / 1,000자

이 양식은 reCAPTCHA로 보호되며 Google 개인정보처리방침 및 서비스 약관이 적용됩니다.

같은 저장소의 스킬

Build and test code with AddressSanitizer, a tool that detects invalid memory access during execution. Configure checks for C/C++ and unsafe Rust, investigate crash reports, and adjust settings for fuzzing, or testing with generated inputs.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 영어 요약을 표시하고 있습니다.

  • Detect memory errors while fuzzing C/C++
  • Test unsafe Rust and calls to external libraries
  • Interpret an ASan crash report
trailofbits/skills7.6천2026년 10월 20일 업데이트

aflpp

무료

Sets up AFL++ to test C/C++ programs with varied generated inputs, a technique called fuzzing. Covers running tests across CPU cores, monitoring progress, reducing input collections, and reproducing crashes for investigation.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 영어 요약을 표시하고 있습니다.

  • Running C/C++ fuzzing across multiple CPU cores
  • Exploring further after libFuzzer progress stalls
  • Monitoring fuzzing progress and stability
trailofbits/skills7.6천2026년 10월 20일 업데이트

Audits GitHub Actions workflows that run AI coding agents. Traces how attacker-controlled content reaches prompts, checks permissions and sandbox settings, and reports evidence, severity, and fixes for prompt injection and related configuration risks.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 영어 요약을 표시하고 있습니다.

  • Reviewing workflows that run AI coding agents
  • Tracing issue and PR content into agent prompts
  • Checking sandbox settings and user allowlists
trailofbits/skills7.6천2026년 10월 20일 업데이트

Reviews Algorand smart contracts written in TEAL or PyTeal for 11 vulnerability patterns. Produces a complete coverage table and findings with code references, severity ratings, and suggested fixes, with optional automated checks using Tealer.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 영어 요약을 표시하고 있습니다.

  • Security checks before an Algorand contract audit
  • Reviewing TEAL or PyTeal transaction validation
  • Verifying fixes for reported vulnerabilities
trailofbits/skills7.6천2026년 10월 20일 업데이트

atheris

무료

Set up Atheris to test Python code and C extensions with automatically varied inputs. It guides test harness creation, coverage tracking to explore more code, and AddressSanitizer setup for finding memory errors.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 영어 요약을 표시하고 있습니다.

  • Fuzzing a Python package or parser
  • Investigating memory corruption in Python C extensions
  • Turning raw bytes into typed test arguments
trailofbits/skills7.6천2026년 10월 20일 업데이트

Connect static analysis results and human audit notes to a Trailmark code graph. Group findings by severity and compare them with input flow, impact, and privilege boundaries to prioritize investigation and understand findings in their code context.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 영어 요약을 표시하고 있습니다.

  • Connecting Semgrep or CodeQL results to code structure
  • Combining human audit notes with automated findings
  • Prioritizing findings using input flow and impact
trailofbits/skills7.6천2026년 10월 20일 업데이트

trailofbits의 스킬 모두 보기

이 스킬의 문제 신고