Peer Review
spacering-net/codeg
Structured manuscript/grant review with checklist-based evaluation.
Run an independent peer review via Claude. An agent skill from tobihagemann/turbo.
Install Peer Review
$ npx skills add tobihagemann/turbo --skill peer-review -a claude-codeProject install by default; add -g for ~/.claude/skills/.
$ gh skill install tobihagemann/turbo peer-review --agent claude-codeProject scope by default; add --scope user for a personal install. Needs GitHub CLI 2.90.0 or later (public preview).
$ git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/tobihagemann/turbo.git skills-src && mkdir -p .claude/skills && cp -r skills-src/codex/skills/peer-review .claude/skills/peer-review && rm -rf skills-srcUse ~/.claude/skills/ instead of .claude/skills for a personal install. The folder must contain SKILL.md.
Claude Code skills documentation · loads skills from .claude/skills/
Install the "peer-review" agent skill from https://github.com/tobihagemann/turbo/tree/main/codex/skills/peer-review into .claude/skills/peer-review/ in this project. Copy the whole folder (SKILL.md and every file beside it), keep the folder name "peer-review", then confirm the skill loads.Claude Code copies the folder itself, the same result as the manual copy. Check what it changed before you commit it.
$skill-installer install https://github.com/tobihagemann/turbo/tree/main/codex/skills/peer-reviewType this inside Codex. $skill-installer <name> installs a curated skill from openai/skills. The installer writes to $CODEX_HOME/skills (default ~/.codex/skills). Restart Codex if the skill does not show up.
$ npx skills add tobihagemann/turbo --skill peer-review -a codexProject install goes to .agents/skills/; add -g for ~/.codex/skills/.
$ gh skill install tobihagemann/turbo peer-review --agent codexProject scope by default (.agents/skills/); add --scope user for a personal install.
$ git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/tobihagemann/turbo.git skills-src && mkdir -p .agents/skills && cp -r skills-src/codex/skills/peer-review .agents/skills/peer-review && rm -rf skills-srcUse ~/.agents/skills/ instead of .agents/skills for a personal install.
Codex skills documentation · loads skills from .agents/skills/
Install the "peer-review" agent skill from https://github.com/tobihagemann/turbo/tree/main/codex/skills/peer-review into .agents/skills/peer-review/ in this project. Copy the whole folder (SKILL.md and every file beside it), keep the folder name "peer-review", then confirm the skill loads.Codex copies the folder itself, the same result as the manual copy. Check what it changed before you commit it.
$ npx skills add tobihagemann/turbo --skill peer-review -a cursorProject install goes to .agents/skills/; add -g for ~/.cursor/skills/.
$ gh skill install tobihagemann/turbo peer-review --agent cursorProject scope by default (.agents/skills/); add --scope user for a personal install.
$ git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/tobihagemann/turbo.git skills-src && mkdir -p .cursor/skills && cp -r skills-src/codex/skills/peer-review .cursor/skills/peer-review && rm -rf skills-srcUse ~/.cursor/skills/ instead of .cursor/skills for a personal install.
Cursor skills documentation · loads skills from .cursor/skills/, .agents/skills/, .claude/skills/, .codex/skills/
Install the "peer-review" agent skill from https://github.com/tobihagemann/turbo/tree/main/codex/skills/peer-review into .cursor/skills/peer-review/ in this project. Copy the whole folder (SKILL.md and every file beside it), keep the folder name "peer-review", then confirm the skill loads.Cursor copies the folder itself, the same result as the manual copy. Check what it changed before you commit it.
$ gemini skills install https://github.com/tobihagemann/turbo.git --path codex/skills/peer-review--scope user (default) or --scope workspace; --path is the subfolder of the repo that holds the skill; --consent skips the security confirmation prompt.
$ npx skills add tobihagemann/turbo --skill peer-review -a gemini-cliProject install goes to .agents/skills/; add -g for ~/.gemini/skills/.
$ gh skill install tobihagemann/turbo peer-review --agent gemini-cliProject scope by default (.agents/skills/); add --scope user for a personal install.
$ git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/tobihagemann/turbo.git skills-src && mkdir -p .gemini/skills && cp -r skills-src/codex/skills/peer-review .gemini/skills/peer-review && rm -rf skills-srcUse ~/.gemini/skills/ instead of .gemini/skills for a personal install, then run /skills reload.
Gemini CLI skills documentation · loads skills from .gemini/skills/, .agents/skills/
Install the "peer-review" agent skill from https://github.com/tobihagemann/turbo/tree/main/codex/skills/peer-review into .gemini/skills/peer-review/ in this project. Copy the whole folder (SKILL.md and every file beside it), keep the folder name "peer-review", then confirm the skill loads.Gemini CLI copies the folder itself, the same result as the manual copy. Check what it changed before you commit it.
$ gh skill install tobihagemann/turbo peer-reviewInstalls for Copilot at project scope by default; add --scope user for a personal install. Preview a skill first with gh skill preview. Needs GitHub CLI 2.90.0 or later (public preview).
$ npx skills add tobihagemann/turbo --skill peer-review -a github-copilotProject install goes to .agents/skills/; add -g for ~/.copilot/skills/.
$ git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/tobihagemann/turbo.git skills-src && mkdir -p .github/skills && cp -r skills-src/codex/skills/peer-review .github/skills/peer-review && rm -rf skills-srcUse ~/.copilot/skills/ instead of .github/skills for a personal install. Commit .github/skills so cloud agent and code review can use it.
GitHub Copilot skills documentation · loads skills from .github/skills/, .claude/skills/, .agents/skills/
Install the "peer-review" agent skill from https://github.com/tobihagemann/turbo/tree/main/codex/skills/peer-review into .github/skills/peer-review/ in this project. Copy the whole folder (SKILL.md and every file beside it), keep the folder name "peer-review", then confirm the skill loads.GitHub Copilot copies the folder itself, the same result as the manual copy. Check what it changed before you commit it.
$ npx skills add tobihagemann/turbo --skill peer-review -a opencodeOpenCode documents no install command of its own. Project install goes to .agents/skills/; add -g for ~/.config/opencode/skills/.
$ gh skill install tobihagemann/turbo peer-review --agent opencodeProject scope by default (.agents/skills/); add --scope user for a personal install.
$ git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/tobihagemann/turbo.git skills-src && mkdir -p .opencode/skills && cp -r skills-src/codex/skills/peer-review .opencode/skills/peer-review && rm -rf skills-srcUse ~/.config/opencode/skills/ instead of .opencode/skills for a personal install.
OpenCode skills documentation · loads skills from .opencode/skills/, .claude/skills/, .agents/skills/
Install the "peer-review" agent skill from https://github.com/tobihagemann/turbo/tree/main/codex/skills/peer-review into .opencode/skills/peer-review/ in this project. Copy the whole folder (SKILL.md and every file beside it), keep the folder name "peer-review", then confirm the skill loads.OpenCode copies the folder itself, the same result as the manual copy. Check what it changed before you commit it.
Facts
- Skill name
peer-review- GitHub stars
- 408
- Token cost
- ~1.2k tokens
- SKILL.md length
- 686 words
- Files
- 1
- Skills in repo
- 81
- Repo updated
- First seen
- Licence
- MIT
At a glance
Run an independent peer review via Claude. An agent skill from tobihagemann/turbo.
- Works in 4 steps: Determine Review Request → Build the Claude Prompt → Run $claude-print Skill → …
- The user asks to peer review
- SKILL.md covers Step 1: Determine Review Request, Step 2: Build the Claude Prompt, Step 3: Run $claude-print Skill and Step 4: Validate Output, plus 1 more section
- Instructions only: no scripts, shell commands, URLs or credentials in SKILL.md
What it does
Peer Review is an agent skill from tobihagemann/turbo. 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".
Its SKILL.md is about 1.2k tokens, which your agent loads only when the skill is triggered. It is a single SKILL.md file with no bundled scripts.
It sits in Research & Science, covering Peer review. The repository describes itself as: Reusable workflows for planning, building, reviewing, and shipping with Claude Code and Codex. The licence is MIT.
When your agent uses it
- The user asks to peer review
- Peer review my code
- Peer review my plan
- Get a second opinion
Example prompts
- “peer review”
- “peer review my code”
- “peer review my plan”
- “/peer-review”
Workflow steps
4 steps, taken from the step headings in SKILL.md.
What it can do on your machine
Read from SKILL.md and the folder at commit 931eda5. It shows what the files ask for, not the result of running them.
Tool permissions
Pre-approves nothing: there is no allowed-tools line, so your agent's usual permission prompts apply.
From allowed-tools in the SKILL.md frontmatter.
Runs code
No scripts in the folder and no shell commands in SKILL.md.
From the folder's file list and the shell code blocks in SKILL.md.
Network
No URLs in SKILL.md.
From URLs in SKILL.md, links to its own repository left out.
Credentials
Names no API keys, tokens, secrets or passwords.
From names ending in _API_KEY, _TOKEN, _SECRET, _KEY or _PASSWORD in SKILL.md.
Context cost
Peer Review loads about 1.2k tokens when it runs. Until then it costs about 48 tokens; SKILL.md has 686 words of instructions outside code blocks.
Estimates: characters ÷ 4, the usual rule of thumb; real counts depend on the model's tokenizer. Scripts and assets cost tokens only if the agent reads them.
Safety
Auto-check passed
The automated check found no risky patterns in SKILL.md.
Automated static check — not a guarantee. Review scripts before installing. It scans the text of SKILL.md for risky patterns (piping downloads into a shell, reading credential files, hidden Unicode, destructive commands); files beside SKILL.md are not scanned.
SKILL.md
The full file from tobihagemann/turbo at commit 931eda5, republished under its MIT licence (© tobihagemann). 686 words, ~1,244 tokens.
Download SKILL.mdSave it as
.claude/skills/peer-review/SKILL.md (or your agent's skills folder).- name
- peer-review
- description
- 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".
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
If no reviewable material is available, stop and state that material is required.
Step 2: Build the Claude Prompt
Assemble a prompt for Claude:
- State that Claude is acting as an independent peer reviewer for Codex.
- Identify the exact material and scope. Pass text you did not author as file paths and diff commands rather than pasted content.
- When the review revisits material an earlier round already covered, rebuild the review subject from the material's current content and state that any earlier version of it is superseded.
- Instruct Claude to read referenced criteria files directly.
- When prior adjudications were identified in Step 1, state them inline in the prompt, labeled as decisions already reached on proposed changes rather than as established properties of the material, and state that a listed finding is raised again only on evidence its recorded reason does not already account for.
- Bound Claude's reads to the material under review, the sources needed to verify claims about it, and the criteria identified in Step 1. Exclude documents unrelated to those three.
- Preserve independent dimensions. If multiple dimensions are requested and Codex sub-agent fan-out is unavailable, ask Claude to review each dimension in a separately labeled section. When the request instead asks explicitly for a single-pass review covering all dimensions, keep it to one pass with each dimension in its own labeled section rather than fanning out, stating an explicit outcome for every dimension, including one with no qualifying findings.
- Require the exact output format expected by the calling skill.
- Require evidence for every actionable finding.
- Tell Claude not to modify files.
- Tell Claude to perform the review itself rather than delegating to another peer review skill or back to Codex. The prompt has already crossed the tool boundary; further forwarding would loop.
Step 3: Run $claude-print Skill
Run the $claude-print skill in read-only mode with the assembled prompt.
Show full SKILL.md (271 more words)Show less
Step 4: Validate Output
Compare Claude's output against the reviewed material and the dimensions and structure requested in Step 2, then classify it into one of three branches:
- Claude returned the requested findings — output them verbatim.
- Incomplete output (any reason — partial fan-out with missing dimensions, mid-run truncation, sections cut off, sub-agent failure, single-dimension review that ends mid-finding, etc.) — output what came back verbatim, name what is missing relative to Step 2's request, then append: "Action required: Peer review returned partial output. Use
request_user_inputto ask the user whether to retry peer review now (transient Claude errors like usage limits often clear within minutes) or proceed with the partial findings. State what is missing so the user can decide." - No output / Claude failed — Claude returned nothing, errored, hit a usage limit, or returned off-topic output that addresses code, files, or topics outside the reviewed material instead of the requested findings. Do not emit off-topic content as findings. Output a single notice stating the cause, then append: "Action required: Peer review failed. Use
request_user_inputto ask the user whether to retry peer review now (transient Claude errors like usage limits often clear within minutes) or proceed without peer review."
Do not synthesize peer findings locally to fill a gap. Peer review's value is independence; locally written findings labeled "peer" mislead the consumer.
Then call update_plan to mark this step completed and continue with the next step of the active workflow.
Rules
$peer-reviewis the stable abstraction. Pipeline skills should not call$claude-printdirectly unless they need raw Claude print-mode behavior.- Do not apply Claude findings directly. Evaluation and application belong to downstream skills.
© tobihagemann, MIT. Rendered from Markdown: HTML in the file is shown as text, images as links, and headings moved down two levels. Raw file
Files
Just SKILL.md in codex/skills/peer-review of tobihagemann/turbo.
Open the folder on GitHubat commit 931eda5
Compare with similar skills
Peer Review next to the 5 skills that share the most tags, products or categories with it. Stars are the repository's; “used in” counts other GitHub owners with a copy.
| Skill | Stars | Used in | Tokens | Auto-check | Licence | Repo updated |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Peer Review this skilltobihagemann/turbo | 408 | — | ~1.2k | Automated safety check: Pass | MIT | |
| Peer Reviewspacering-net/codeg | 3.9k | 17 repos | ~5.9k | Automated safety check: Notes | MIT | |
| Scholar Evaluationspacering-net/codeg | 3.9k | 11 repos | ~3.2k | Automated safety check: Pass | MIT | |
| Academic Paper Writing PipelineImbad0202/academic-research-skills | 51k | — | ~16k | Automated safety check: Pass | Custom licence | |
| Academic Paper ReviewerImbad0202/academic-research-skills | 51k | — | ~11k | Automated safety check: Pass | Custom licence | |
| Peer ReviewK-Dense-AI/claude-scientific-writer | 2.4k | 2 repos | ~3.1k | Automated safety check: Notes | MIT |
Similar skills
Scholar Evaluation
spacering-net/codeg
Systematically evaluate scholarly work using the ScholarEval framework, providing structured assessment across research quality dimensions including problem formulation, methodology, analysis, and…
Academic Paper Writing Pipeline
Imbad0202/academic-research-skills
Runs a 12-agent pipeline that plans, drafts, cites, reviews and formats academic papers, with modes for revision, rebuttals, abstracts and citation checks.
Academic Paper Reviewer
Imbad0202/academic-research-skills
Simulates a journal peer review of a manuscript with a five-seat reviewer panel, an editorial synthesizer and several review modes.
Peer Review
K-Dense-AI/claude-scientific-writer
Prepare evidence-bounded, constructive peer-review drafts and structured manuscript assessments.
Academic Research Pipeline
Imbad0202/academic-research-skills
Orchestrates a ten-stage academic workflow from research to finished manuscript, including integrity checks, two rounds of peer review and revision.
More from tobihagemann/turbo
All 81 skills in this repoConsult Oracle
tobihagemann/turbo
Consult ChatGPT Pro via ChatGPT browser automation for problems that resist standard approaches.
Fetch PR Comments
tobihagemann/turbo
Fetch and summarize review feedback and conversation from a GitHub PR (unresolved review threads, review bodies, and PR conversation comments) without making changes.
Recall Rationale
tobihagemann/turbo
Recall why a past change was made by locating the Claude Code transcript that produced it.
Resolve PR Comments
tobihagemann/turbo
Evaluate, fix, answer, and reply to GitHub pull request review comments and conversation comments.
Resolve PR Comments
tobihagemann/turbo
Evaluate, fix, answer, and reply to GitHub pull request review comments and conversation comments.
Assess Technical Debt
tobihagemann/turbo
Assess project-wide structural technical debt: complexity hotspots, deprecated API usage, duplication clusters, architecture rot, and low-value tests.
Related
Categories
Questions about Peer Review
What does Peer Review do?
Run an independent peer review via Claude. An agent skill from tobihagemann/turbo. Peer Review is an agent skill from tobihagemann/turbo. Run an independent peer review via Claude.
When should I use Peer Review?
Peer Review fits situations like: the user asks to peer review; peer review my code; peer review my plan; get a second opinion.
How do I install Peer Review in Claude Code?
Run `npx skills add tobihagemann/turbo --skill peer-review -a claude-code`. Or copy the skill folder (codex/skills/peer-review in tobihagemann/turbo) into .claude/skills/peer-review in your project. Claude Code loads it when a task matches its description.
How do I install Peer Review in Codex?
Run `npx skills add tobihagemann/turbo --skill peer-review -a codex`. Or copy the skill folder (codex/skills/peer-review in tobihagemann/turbo) into .agents/skills/peer-review in your project. Codex loads it when a task matches its description.
Can I use Peer Review in Cursor, Gemini CLI or GitHub Copilot?
Cursor, Gemini CLI, GitHub Copilot and OpenCode also load SKILL.md folders. With the skills CLI, run `npx skills add tobihagemann/turbo --skill peer-review -a cursor` (or -a gemini-cli, github-copilot or opencode for the others). To copy it by hand, put the folder in .cursor/skills/peer-review, .gemini/skills/peer-review, .github/skills/peer-review and .opencode/skills/peer-review in your project.
What does Peer Review need to run?
SKILL.md names no scripts, command-line tools or credentials: Peer Review is instructions for the agent only.
Does Peer Review access the network?
SKILL.md contains no URLs. Any network use would come from the scripts or tools the agent runs. This is read from the text; nothing was executed.
Is Peer Review safe to install?
Our automated static check of SKILL.md found no risky patterns, such as piping downloads into a shell, reading credential files or hidden Unicode. It is not a guarantee. Review the folder before installing.
What licence does Peer Review use?
Peer Review is published under the MIT licence (the repository's licence). It allows redistribution, so the full SKILL.md is shown on this page.
How many tokens does Peer Review use?
About 1.2k tokens (SKILL.md is roughly 5k characters). Agents keep only the skill's name and description in context until a task matches; then they load SKILL.md in full.
What are the alternatives to Peer Review?
Skills that share tags, products or a category with Peer Review: Peer Review (spacering-net/codeg, 3.9k stars), Scholar Evaluation (spacering-net/codeg, 3.9k stars), Academic Paper Writing Pipeline (Imbad0202/academic-research-skills, 51k stars) and Academic Paper Reviewer (Imbad0202/academic-research-skills, 51k stars). The comparison table on this page puts their stars, adoption, token cost, safety result and licence side by side.
Who maintains Peer Review?
tobihagemann (a GitHub user) maintains it in tobihagemann/turbo, which has 408 GitHub stars. The repository holds 81 skills in this directory. The repository was last updated on October 9, 2026.
Source: tobihagemann/turbo on GitHub. Facts on this page come from the repository at the commit we read; the author's words are quoted as theirs.