Individual skill
peer-review
Run an independent peer review via Claude. Use when the user asks to "peer review", "peer review my code", "peer review my plan", "get a second opinion", or "independent review".
codex/skills/peer-review/SKILL.md
Source commit d56f17f0ba88ead3a4a77fcdc884f80cd3d10d2f
What was checked
- Matches the observed repository HEAD
- Yes
- Scanner rules are current
- Yes
- Repository scan complete
- No
- Skill scan complete
- No
- Observed behavior
- Instructions only
- Last checked
- Nov 10, 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)
- 420
- Repository last updated
- Nov 10, 2026
- License
- MIT
Observed agent integration: No specific integration evidence. Standard SKILL.md installation does not imply verified compatibility.
- agent-skills Repository topic
- claude-code Repository topic
- claude-skills Repository topic
- developer-tools Repository topic
- skills Repository topic
- codex Repository topic
- codex-skills Repository topic
- agentic-coding Repository topic
- claude-code-plugin Repository topic
- codex-plugin 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.
Read excerpt
# Peer Review
Independent peer review via Claude. Translates a natural-language review request into a Claude-specific prompt so invocations stay implementation-agnostic.
## Step 1: Determine Review Request
Extract from the current context:
- **Material** — code diff, files, plan, feedback, or other artifact to review
- **Review dimensions** — correctness, security, API usage, consistency, simplicity, coverage, plan readiness, feedback interpretation, or explicit user criteria
- **Criteria** — reference file paths Claude should read directly, inline criteria text, or the material's own domain conventions
- **Prior adjudications** — findings already judged, one line each with its verdict and the recorded reason; optional
- **Output format** — findings schema, verdict labels, priority scale, and any required metadata fields
