peer-review-template

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

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