Menu
Evaluates external peer review findings against the actual codebase, separating valid issues from misunderstandings, and produces a prioritized action plan. Use when another model or reviewer has provided feedback on the current implementation.
Install with Codex or Claude Copy this prompt, paste it into Codex, Claude, or another assistant, and let it review the skill page and install it for you.
Based on SOC occupation classification
Updates all project documentation after code or skill changes. Always reads actual implementation before writing. Covers README, CHANGELOG, docs/, AGENTS.md, memory files, and skills-info.md. Use after completing any feature, fix, refactor, or skill update.
Compacts the current conversation into a handoff document so a fresh agent can continue the work. Saves to the OS temp directory, not the workspace. Pass an optional argument describing what the next session will focus on.
Documents the process, methodology, and decisions of the current session as a reproducible narrative. Saves to spec/process/ in the workspace so the journey can be understood and recreated by others.
Scaffolds a new project by conducting an interview to collect metadata and generating standard repository documentation files from the framework templates. Use when setting up a new repository.
Run this after /hyper-tutorial-run to turn tutorial failures into a structured, constraint-aware goal prompt. Interviews the user about their goal and what may/may not be changed, then generates a paste-ready prompt for a new Claude Code fix session. Does NOT re-run tutorial commands.
Generates a markdown tutorial from an integration test or user-provided files through iterative LLM + human collaboration. Tutorials are saved to tutorials/<name>/ with organized supporting files.
| name | peer-review |
| description | Evaluates external peer review findings against the actual codebase, separating valid issues from misunderstandings, and produces a prioritized action plan. Use when another model or reviewer has provided feedback on the current implementation. |
This skill critically evaluates external peer review findings as the team lead — verifying each finding against the actual code before accepting or rejecting it.
/hyper-peer-review and pastes review findings.Receive the Findings If feedback was not provided with the command, use AskUserQuestion:
How would you like to provide the peer review feedback?
- Option A: I'll paste the feedback — type or paste the review content directly
- Option B: It's already in a file — provide the file path and I will read it
The reviewer has less context on this project's history and decisions than you do — evaluate accordingly.
Verify Each Finding For EACH finding:
Produce the Summary Output three sections:
Valid Findings (Confirmed Issues)
Invalid Findings (Rejected with Explanation)
Prioritized Action Plan
spec/compiled/architecture.yml for architectural context when evaluating structural findings.