Peer Review

Engineering Peer Review

Run an independent adversarial review of an engineering artifact. This skill reuses the engineering-research evidence discipline with a review-specific lens. The reviewer has NOT seen the author's reasoning — independence is the point.

Invocation

/peer-review 

Attach or point to: research brief, design document, calculation set, or report.

Methodology

1. Identify artifact and claims — what is it, what does it claim, what standard/code governs it? List every critical claim, number, and citation.

1. Verify load-bearing items — for each critical claim:

• Trace to source (standard + section + line, or URL)
• Re-derive any calculation from stated formula, inputs, and units
• Check code/standard applicability (right domain? right edition? right jurisdiction?)
• Confirm the source actually supports the claim at the pinned location

1. Produce severity-graded findings:

• FATAL — unsafe, non-compliant, or unsupported; must fix before use
• MAJOR — likely wrong or a real gap; fix before finalizing
• MINOR — clarity, consistency, polish
• Each finding cites the specific section/line/claim it targets

1. Check what was NOT verified — mark blocked where the source could not be read. Never let a missing check read as a pass.

1. Write a revision plan — prioritized, concrete steps per finding.

Output

Inline Summary (chat response)

• Artifact scope and claim count
• FATAL / MAJOR / MINOR counts
• Top 3 issues with evidence trails
• Overall revision risk assessment

Full Review (saved to disk)

Save to outputs/peer-review/.md:

# Peer Review: 

## Summary Assessment
- **Artifact type:** 
- **Claims reviewed:** 
- **FATAL:**  | **MAJOR:**  | **MINOR:** 
- **Revision risk:** low / medium / high

## Strengths
- 

## Findings

### FATAL

#### F1: 
- **Location:** 
- **Issue:** 
- **Evidence:** 
- **Fix:** 

### MAJOR

#### M1: 
- **Location:** 
- **Issue:** 
- **Evidence:** 
- **Fix:** 

### MINOR

#### m1: 
- **Location:** 
- **Issue:** 
- **Suggestion:** 

## Verification Status
- **Verified:**  claims traced to source
- **Blocked:**  claims (source unreachable)
- **Unverified:**  claims (default, not yet checked)

## Revision Plan
1. 
2. 
3. 
4. 

## Evidence Trail (Line-Pinned)
| # | Finding | Source | Location (§/line) | Verdict |
|---|---------|--------|-------------------|---------|
| 1 |  |  |  | contradicts / partially supports / missing |

Scope and Boundaries

• This skill identifies issues — it does NOT approve or sign off. Final engineering sign-off requires a licensed engineer.
• Research-only, not for final engineering sign-off.
• Default-FAIL posture: every claim starts unverified, must be traced to source.
• Never soften a FATAL to MAJOR to avoid being harsh. Engineering accountability requires honest verdicts.
• Evidence quality: see references/evidence-quality-tiers.md.

Source & license

This open-source skill is cataloged on AgentStack and links to its original source — we do not rehost the code.

• Author: adeerkhan
• Source: adeerkhan/vitruvius
• License: MIT

Install and usage instructions live in the source repository linked above.