A skill for reviewing a pull request when a peer asks for review.

It helps inspect and comment on a peer's proposed code changes.

It gives the coding agent a defined context for responding to peer review requests.

review:peer — Skill for Claude Code by bendrucker/claude

Install

Getting it into your agent

One page per mod, every tool's command on it. A separate URL per tool would split the same page into five that compete with each other.

Any agent

npx skills add bendrucker/claude --skill peer

Clone the repo

git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/bendrucker/claude

Made for: Claude Code.

Or install review, the plugin that ships this one along with the rest of its 4 skills.

Wrote 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.

README.md

[![agentmods](https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/bendrucker/claude/peer/github.svg)](https://agentmods.dev/skills/bendrucker/claude/peer)

Your own site

<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/bendrucker/claude/peer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/bendrucker/claude/peer/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.

Your own site · 80×15

<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/bendrucker/claude/peer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/bendrucker/claude/peer.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>

Per session 54 Skills are progressive disclosure: only the name and description are preloaded; the body loads when the skill is used.

When invoked 1,131 The whole file, excluding the scripts and references it only reads on demand.

Security scan A 0 findings. A grade says what 26 rules found in the file — not that it is safe.

Origin original No closer match found in the catalogue.

Token cost

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	$0.00054	$0.01131
Opus 5.5	$0.00022	$0.00452
Sonnet 5.5	$0.00011	$0.00226
Haiku 4.5	$0.00005	$0.00113

Measured 10d ago against content hash 6026e0394ba6, method: parsed. Prices are Anthropic first-party input rates as of 2026-10-07, from the pricing page.

Security

Grade A, and why

review:peer 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 10d ago.

The scan reads SKILL.md. This mod also ships 7 executable files (scripts/comment.test.ts, scripts/comment.ts, scripts/diff.test.ts, …), listed below but not scanned — reading those needs a real analyzer, not pattern matching.

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.

plugins/review/skills/peer/SKILL.md · 85 lines

How it starts

The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 85 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.

Peer Review

Help me review this PR: $ARGUMENTS

The review is done when I have approved a mapped set of comments (or an approval with none) and it is posted as one batch.

Context

Your own login as the reviewer (see tone.md for how to address each party). The platform that doesn't apply reads unavailable.

GitHub user: !gh api graphql -f query='{viewer{login}}' --jq .data.viewer.login 2>/dev/null | grep . || echo "unavailable"
GitLab user: !glab api user 2>/dev/null | jq -r .username 2>/dev/null | grep . || echo "unavailable"

Triage Mode

With --triage, stay read-only and judge scope from the PR body, diff stat, and files touched. Report two things and stop:

What the PR changes, in one line.
The review effort on the effort scale, with one-line reasoning.

Guardrails

Show me the file comments and review comment, and post only on my go.
When everything looks good, propose approving with no comment.
Write in my voice. You're commenting as me.
Ask me about ambiguous code.
For library introspection, read the source or fetch the docs.

Workflow

Research: gather context and identify participants (see research.md).
Context: private repos use corporate defaults, public repos use open-source. Check with gh api repos/OWNER/REPO --jq .visibility or glab api projects/ENCODED_PATH | jq .visibility. Ask me if ambiguous.
Review the changed files and existing comments.
Delegate: run code-review, except on trivial PRs (docs-only, dep bumps). It reads the local diff, so gh pr checkout first. Before invoking, summarize the diff (rough line count, files, sensitive areas) and PR-body signals, propose an effort level, and confirm it via AskUserQuestion.
Think on two separate axes, so a clean diff does not mask a missed requirement: requirement fulfillment (requirements.md) and code quality (priorities.md, smells.md), folding in code-review findings.
Map: write proposed comments to a JSON file (id, path, start_line, end_line, side, comment_type, content), then map them to platform positions. Skip when approving with no comments.

Read the full file on GitHub · 85 lines

Files

What ships with it

14 files beside SKILL.md in the same directory: the scripts, references and assets a skill reads on demand. Not counted in the per-session cost; read them before you install if any of them is executable.

Changes

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.

10d ago Changed · +1 lines 6026e0394ba6
21d ago Changed 7e52e42751bd
2mo ago Changed · +4 lines aa61529a7464
2mo ago Changed · +71 lines · +42 tokens per session 8aa10e2bdb91
2mo ago First seen · 9 lines · 12 tokens per session scan A 2411e10e9a19

Subscribe to this mod's changes

review:peer is a skill published in the GitHub repository bendrucker/claude (18 stars, last pushed today), licensed MIT. It adds 54 tokens to every session and 1,131 once invoked, about $0.0002 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 2026-08-30.

Claude Code Code review claude-code-plugin

review:peer next to 6 skills from other repositories
Mod	Type	Stars	Last push	Licence	Scan	Tokens	Works with
review:peerbendrucker/claude	Skill	18	today	MIT	A	54	Claude Code
reviewSethGammon/Citadel	Skill	928	4d ago	MIT	A	17	Claude Code
critical-code-reviewerposit-dev/skills	Skill	561	7d ago	MIT	A	67	Claude Code
brooks-sweephyhmrright/brooks-lint	Skill	1.6k	today	MIT	A	178	Claude Code
pr-reviewnitinjain999/platform-skills	Skill	71	yesterday	Apache-2.0	A	81	Claude Code
skill-distilleriliaal/whetstone	Skill	36	today	MIT	A	91	Claude Code
review-depthjszmajda/lid	Skill	118	today	MIT	A	93	Claude Code