| name | peer-review-template |
| description | Structured peer review for analytical work. Use when reviewing teammates' analysis, providing constructive feedback, or establishing analysis quality standards. |
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
- 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.
- 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?
- Review code or SQL — if the analysis involves code, apply
references/code_review_for_analysis.md: reproducibility, correctness, readability, and performance.
- 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.
- Author responds — the author addresses each point and notes disposition (fixed / accepted as-is with rationale / deferred); use
assets/review_response_template.md.
- 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
