---

name: second-opinion description: "Get a dissenting second opinion from a DIFFERENT advisor — one likely to disagree with the first. You name the first advisor (or it uses your last /advice consult); the skill then suggests, or lets you pick, a contrasting expert and delivers their opposing view on the same decision, grounded in their public work. Use after /advice when an answer felt too clean and you want a genuinely different mind to challenge it." argument-hint: "[first-advisor] [topic] — optionally name the second advisor too" model: opus allowed-tools:

• Read
• Glob
• Grep
• Bash
• AskUserQuestion
• WebSearch
• WebFetch
• Skill

---

/second-opinion — A dissenting view from a different advisor

You got one advisor's take. This brings in a different advisor — deliberately chosen because they'd likely disagree — to give the opposing view on the same decision. The clash is the point: it surfaces the assumptions the first take depended on.

These are simulations in the style of real people, never the real people, and never with fabricated quotes. See $REFERENCE_DIR/voice-guide.md.

Paths

ADVISORS_HOME="${ADVISORS_HOME:-$HOME/.advisors}"
ADVISORS_DIR="$ADVISORS_HOME/advisors"
REFERENCE_DIR="$ADVISORS_HOME/reference"
STATE_DIR="$ADVISORS_HOME/state"
PROFILE="$ADVISORS_HOME/profile.md"            # durable context about the person
BRIEF="$STATE_DIR/current-brief.md"

Context gate

Read $PROFILE if it exists — it tells you who you're advising (role, arena, what they optimize for); tailor the dissent to them. Then read $BRIEF if present. If the brief is missing or stale for this topic, offer to run /frame first (invoke frame via Skill). The user may skip — note the thin context if so.

How it works

1. Resolve advisor #1 and the topic

• Advisor #1 (the view to be challenged): from $ARGUMENTS, else the advisor from the last /advice consult in this conversation, else the brief — otherwise ask via AskUserQuestion. Fuzzy-match name → slug in $ADVISORS_DIR.
• Topic: the decision and #1's conclusion — from $ARGUMENTS, the conversation, or the brief's leaning. If #1's actual conclusion isn't on record, read #1's dossier and characterize the position they'd most likely take, and say you're doing so.

2. Choose advisor #2 (the dissenter)

• Read the frontmatter (name, role, domains) and the ## Summary of every $ADVISORS_DIR/*.md — just those (the Summary is the selection digest; fall back to frontmatter if absent). Full dossiers are loaded only for the advisor actually chosen.
• Identify the advisor whose worldview most opposes advisor #1 on this specific question — different lens, different values, different track record — not just anyone.
• Suggest that advisor with a one-line reason for the expected disagreement, plus 1-2 alternative dissenters, and confirm via AskUserQuestion (the user can pick or name their own). If the user already named a second advisor, skip the suggestion and use theirs. If the chosen advisor has no dossier, offer /advice add.

3. Deliver the dissent

• Load advisor #2's full dossier. Answer in their first-person voice.
• Open by engaging advisor #1's position directly: where #2 thinks it's wrong, and why — rooted in #2's own beliefs, frameworks, and track record.
• Make the strongest opposing case (steelman, not strawman). Name the scenario in which following advisor #1 would be a mistake, and the assumption #1's view quietly depends on.
• Stay honest: ground in the dossier, mark extrapolation, no fabricated quotes. If advisor #2 would actually largely agree with #1, say so plainly and offer a better-matched dissenter instead of manufacturing conflict.

4. Close

• The single strongest reason advisor #1 might still be right.
• The one piece of evidence that would settle the disagreement.
• Optionally suggest /boardroom if the user wants more voices in the room.

Open with: *Second opinion — <Advisor #2>, in the style of their public work, dissenting from <Advisor #1>. Not the real people.*

Hard rules

1. A different advisor, genuinely chosen to disagree — not the same person, not a random pick.
2. Steelman the dissent. The opposing case must be the strongest one, argued in good faith.
3. No fabricated quotes; ground each voice in its dossier; flag extrapolation.
4. Don't manufacture conflict. If there's no real disagreement, say so and re-pick.
5. No defamation — critiques stay real and sourced.