igorsaevets/ai-second-opinion
Developer toolsこのページは AI により自動翻訳されています。技術的な詳細は原文をご確認ください。 原文を見る
A second opinion from a panel of AI models: each trained on different data, in its own harness, so each brings its own advice, plus an UNASKED section for what you did not ask.
概要
A panel pays off twice: 1. Each model was trained on its own data and runs in its own harness: the vendor's CLI agent or an API, its own web search, its own way of reading pages. So when you ask "how should I design this" or "review this code", each one answers with its own recommendations, and together they cover more than any one of them. 2. The models never see each other's answers. When they agree, that means something; when they disagree, it means more. One AI agreeing with you proves nothing. Every review answer ends with an section. That is where the model puts a wrong assumption, a risk, a better alternative or the thing worth checking next — only what it would defend as significant, and if there is nothing, it says so. The most valuable finding often comes from there. Send the same document : GPT, Gemini, Grok, Kimi, Qwen, DeepSeek, GLM, MiMo, Muse Spark, NVIDIA Nemotron, and Claude if you switch it on.
README
以下は原文 README の抜粋です。原文を見る。
AI Second Opinion
Every AI model knows different things. Ask several at once and you get not only a check, but advice no single model would have given you — including on what you did not ask.
One document goes to several AI models at once, and one report comes back. Sending your document to the AI vendors behind the channels you turn on is the whole point; the tool itself has no server and collects nothing, and on its own it only checks GitHub for a new version, at most once a day (what goes where).
What a real run found
A run of version 1.113.0 on 2026-10-17, on the author’s machine and accounts: seven CLI agents, not the published default panel (that one is below). They were asked where this tool should be listed and what would block a listing, with our own table of channels and their rules attached. From that run’s REPORT.md, which stays on the author’s machine:
| Model (how it ran) | Time | Links cited | Live | Dead |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| GPT-6.1 Sol (Codex CLI) | 16 min | 50 | 40 | 0 |
| Qwen 3.8 Max (Qwen Code CLI) † | 26 min | 14 | 7 | 0 |
| Grok 4.7 (Grok Build CLI) | 7 min | 21 | 17 | 0 |
| Gemini 3.8 Flash (Antigravity CLI) | 5 min | 29 | 21 | 0 |
| Muse Spark 1.3 (opencode, Go plan) † | 1 min | 22 | 16 | 2 |
| MiMo v2.6 Pro (mimo CLI) † | 8 min | 1 | 1 | 0 |
| MiMo v2.6 Flash (opencode) | 12 min | 0 | — | — |
† A route the published version leaves off. Live: the link opened when the tool checked it; dead: it returned 404; the rest had moved, blocked the check or could not be checked. A live link does not show that the model read it.
- A rule our own table had missed. It said we meet the entry rules of the awesome-claude-code list. Five of the seven (GPT-6.1 Sol, Qwen, Grok, Gemini, MiMo Pro) pointed to a rule further down its CONTRIBUTING.md: «if your project requires any form of signup or payment, this is a blocker for reviewing it - I can only recommend such a resource on the basis of community adoption signals».
- A disagreement, kept in view. Build an MCP server now? MiMo Flash, the one voice that cited no links: «Build it — as a thin wrapper, started now…». The other six: not now.
- What was cited is not what was read. Gemini cited 29 links; the tool saw it open 2 of them. Muse Spark’s two dead links are one real GitHub Docs page, cited twice with part of the path replaced by «…».
推奨ツール
別のキーワードを試すか、フィルタを外してください。
インストール
npx skillfish add igorsaevets/ai-second-opinion