mcpField
P
peer-review-template

peer-review-template

github.com/nimrodfisherData & databases504211 installsUpdated 5w ago
Repository

About peer-review-template

peer-review-template is a skill for reviewing consequential analysis before delivery to stakeholders. It guides reviewers from agreeing on scope through assessing analytical rigor and code to documenting feedback, author responses, and sign-off.

Key features

  1. 01Review scope and expectation setting
  2. 02Analytical rigor checklist
  3. 03Code and SQL review guidance
  4. 04Categorized feedback and response templates
  5. 05Reviewer sign-off tracking

Use cases

  1. 01Reviewing dashboards before production
  2. 02Checking analysis behind strategic reports
  3. 03Assessing A/B test conclusions
  4. 04Reviewing analysis intended for external citation

Install

Copy the command and run it in a terminal.

$npx skills add https://github.com/nimrodfisher/data-analytics-skills --skill peer-review-template

After installing, type/peer-review-templatein Claude Code to confirm it loaded.

Bundled files

References and scripts installed along with SKILL.md.

assets/
peer_review_template.md
review_response_template.md
references/
analytical_rigor_checklist.md
code_review_for_analysis.md
peer_review_framework.md

Details

From the project README

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

  • Analysis output to review (notebook, report, dashboard spec, or SQL)
  • Review scope agreed with author
  • Reviewer name and role

Output

  • Completed review with categorised feedback (peer_review_template.md)
  • Author response log (review_response_template.md)
  • Sign-off confirmation

Comments

Markdown supported