peer-review

# Peer Review Independent peer review via codex. Translates a natural-language review request into a codex-specific prompt so invocations stay implementation-agnostic. ## Step 1: Understand the Request Identify from the invoking prompt or conversation context: - **Material** — the code scope, artifact text, feedback items, or other content under review - **Criteria** — reference file paths codex should read directly, inline criteria text, or the material's own domain conventions - **Dimensions** — one review concern (single-pass) or multiple independent concerns (fan-out, one per dimension) - **Skepticism guidance** — any material-specific instruction for pushing past surface findings; optional - **Prior adjudications** — findings already judged, one line each with its verdict and the recorded reason; optional - **Output format** — finding layout, priority scale, or verdict labels; optional If no reviewable material is available, stop and state that material is required. ## Step 2: Build the Codex Prompt Assemble the prompt using codex's XML tag conventions (see `/codex-exec` Prompt Shaping): - **`<task>`** — the scope or material, criteria pointers (file paths codex should read, or inline criteria), and any needed context. When the material is a git diff or working-tree scope, write the diff to a file under `.turbo/` and reference that file as the review subject. Pin it as the sole subject: state that only this diff is under review and that any output addressing othe...