Individual skill

peer-review-template

Structured peer review for analytical work. Use when reviewing teammates' analysis, providing constructive feedback, or establishing analysis quality standards.

06-workflow-optimization/peer-review-template/SKILL.md

Read pinned source

Source commit 9449d363e1ae43cf1706c73bebc16774e339c427

What was checked

Matches the observed repository HEAD: Yes
Scanner rules are current: No
Repository scan complete: No
Skill scan complete: Yes
Observed behavior: Not checked yet
Last checked: Nov 6, 2026

These are observations at the recorded commit, not a guarantee of safety. Review the source before running it.

Install this skill

Choose an agent in your Stack or copy a command below. Commands fetch the pinned commit and copy only this skill directory. Existing destinations are refused. Copying a command does not install anything.

An install command is unavailable: current rules, complete repository and skill scans, an eligible behavior level and a permitted license are required.

Repository context

Repository stars (not skill ratings): 519
Repository last updated: Nov 7, 2026
License: MIT

Observed agent integration: No specific integration evidence. Standard SKILL.md installation does not imply verified compatibility.

claude-code Repository topic
codex Repository topic
data-analytics Repository topic
skills Repository topic
engineering Derived category

Files and excerpt

File metadata and permitted, redacted excerpts come from the recorded scan. Source links are pinned to that commit.

Browse files

SKILL.mdcore · 1,975 bytes
assets/peer_review_template.mddoc · 1,841 bytes
assets/review_response_template.mddoc · 1,630 bytes
references/analytical_rigor_checklist.mddoc · 2,923 bytes
references/code_review_for_analysis.mddoc · 3,378 bytes
references/peer_review_framework.mddoc · 2,947 bytes

Read excerpt


# When to use

Before any analysis that will influence a significant decision is delivered to stakeholders. Peer review should be part of the standard delivery checklist for: dashboards going into production, reports used for strategic decisions, A/B test conclusions, and any analysis that will be cited externally.

# Process

1. **Agree scope of review** — clarify with the author what kind of review is needed: logic check, statistical validity, code review, or presentation clarity. Use `references/peer_review_framework.md` to set expectations.
2. **Review analytical rigour** — work through `references/analytical_rigor_checklist.md`: are the question and method aligned? Are assumptions valid? Is the conclusion supported by the data?
3. **Review code or SQL** — if the analysis involves code, apply `references/code_review_for_analysis.md`: reproducibility, correctness, readability, and performance.
4. **Write feedback** — use the feedback structure in `assets/peer_review_template.md`: must-fix issues, should-fix suggestions, and optional improvements. Be specific; "this is unclear" is not actionable.
5. **Author responds** — the author addresses each point and notes disposition (fixed / accepted as-is with rationale / deferred); use `assets/review_response_template.md`.
6. **Close the review** — reviewer confirms must-fix items are resolved and signs off; document the outcome in `assets/peer_review_template.md`.

# Inputs the skill needs