Borrowing it
Nothing to install: this file belongs to makedirectory/ModelPeer. Take a copy, put it at the same path in your own repository, and replace the rules that are about this project with yours.
curl -O https://raw.githubusercontent.com/makedirectory/ModelPeer/main/.claude/commands/peer-review.mdgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/makedirectory/ModelPeerWrote this? Show the measurements
A badge with what this costs and how it scanned, read live from this page, so it follows the numbers instead of freezing them. Markdown for a README, HTML for a documentation site or a project page.
[](https://agentmods.dev/commands/makedirectory/modelpeer/peer-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/makedirectory/modelpeer/peer-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/makedirectory/modelpeer/peer-review/github.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" height="20"></a>Or the 80×15 button, for a site that already has a row of RSS and ATOM ones. Only the verdict fits; the numbers stay here.
<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/makedirectory/modelpeer/peer-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/makedirectory/modelpeer/peer-review.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>What it costs to keep this loaded
Counted locally with the o200k_base tokenizer, which is exact for GPT models; Claude uses its own tokenizer and its counts differ. Treat this as one consistent yardstick across the catalogue rather than a bill. Prices are per million input tokens.
| Model | Per session | Once invoked |
|---|---|---|
| Fable 5.1 | $0.00009 | $0.00221 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00088 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00044 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00001 | $0.00022 |
Grade A, and why
peer-review scanned grade A with 0 findings against 26 rules in 11 categories — prompt injection, anti-refusal, data exfiltration, privilege escalation, supply chain, agent snooping, system-prompt leakage, SSRF and excessive agency — measured 1mo ago.
A static scan of the body, not an audit. Every finding is printed with the line that produced it so you can judge whether it matters here. A mod is markdown that instructs an agent; that is exactly why what it instructs is worth reading.
Nothing flagged
None of the 26 patterns this scan looks for appear in this file: no shell pipes, no recursive deletes, no credential paths, no hidden text, no instruction-override or anti-refusal phrasing, no agent-config snooping. That is not a guarantee, it is the absence of the things that are checkable.
What it actually says
Run an independent cross-model review of the current working tree with
model-peer review, passing $ARGUMENTS as the focus when it is non-empty.
Every installed model reviews the same diff without seeing the others' conclusions, then a synthesizer reconciles them. Reviewers run at the same time, so this takes a few minutes and looks busy: stderr carries interleaved progress from several models, and nothing reaches stdout until the whole panel has finished. Let it finish.
Then:
- Report the synthesized findings, grouped by severity, without softening them.
- For each finding, say whether you agree and why. A peer does not know this project's invariants; project rules win over generic advice.
- Do not apply any fix unless I ask for it.
What this file has done since we first saw it
Hashed on every crawl. A supply-chain change to an agent config is a question of when, not whether, so the history is kept rather than the latest state alone.
- 1mo ago First seen · 24 lines · 9 tokens per session scan A 6c8a212d7cb3
peer-review is a command published in the GitHub repository makedirectory/ModelPeer (1 stars, last pushed 2mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 9 tokens to every session and 221 once invoked, about $0.0000 per session on Opus 5.5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. No closer match exists in the catalogue, so it is treated as the original; first seen 2026-08-31.
Other commands, from other repositories
refactor-clean
Refactor provided code for cleanliness, maintainability, and alignment with SOLID principles and modern best practices — no over-engineering.
audit-agents-skills
Audit quality of agents, skills, and commands in a Claude Code project.
review-branch
Review the current branch's diff against base by dispatching atomic-reviewer. No orchestration loop, no spec required — pre-flight before /commit pr or /commit merge.
pi-code-review
Adversarial code review via Codex — break confidence in changes, not validate them.
pi-ask-gemini
Ask Gemini a question — get Google's perspective alongside Claude's.
sonarqube
Analyze SonarCloud quality issues for a specific PR.