gemini-peer-review▌
jezweb/claude-skills · updated Apr 8, 2026
MDX-style export adds YAML metadata + attribution linking explainx.ai and this canonical listing URL.
Consult Gemini as a coding peer for a second opinion on code quality, architecture decisions, debugging, or security reviews.
Gemini Peer Review
Consult Gemini as a coding peer for a second opinion on code quality, architecture decisions, debugging, or security reviews.
Setup
API Key: Set GEMINI_API_KEY as an environment variable. Get a key from https://aistudio.google.com/apikey if you don't have one.
export GEMINI_API_KEY="your-key-here"
Workflow
-
Determine mode from user request (review, architect, debug, security, quick)
-
Read target files into context
-
Build prompt using the AI-to-AI template from references/prompt-templates.md
-
Write prompt to file at
.claude/artifacts/gemini-prompt.txt(avoids shell escaping issues) -
Call the API — generate a Python script that:
- Reads
GEMINI_API_KEYfrom environment - Reads the prompt from
.claude/artifacts/gemini-prompt.txt - POSTs to
https://generativelanguage.googleapis.com/v1beta/models/{model}:generateContent - Payload:
{"contents": [{"parts": [{"text": prompt}]}], "generationConfig": {"temperature": 0.3, "maxOutputTokens": 8192}} - Extracts text from
candidates[0].content.parts[0].text - Prints result to stdout
Write the script to
.claude/scripts/gemini-review.pyand run it. - Reads
-
Synthesize — present Gemini's findings, add your own perspective (agree/disagree), let the user decide what to implement
Modes
Code Review
Review specific files for bugs, logic errors, security vulnerabilities, performance issues, and best practice violations.
Read the target files, build a prompt using the Code Review template, call with gemini-2.5-flash.
Architecture Advice
Get feedback on design decisions with trade-off analysis. Include project context (CLAUDE.md, relevant source files).
Read project context, build a prompt using the Architecture template, call with gemini-2.5-pro.
Debugging Help
Analyse errors when stuck after 2+ failed fix attempts. Gemini sees the code fresh without your debugging context bias.
Read the problematic files, build a prompt using the Debug template (include error message and previous attempts), call with gemini-2.5-flash.
Security Scan
Scan code for security vulnerabilities (injection, auth bypass, data exposure).
Read the target directory's source files, build a prompt using the Security template, call with gemini-2.5-pro.
Quick Question
Fast question without file context. Build prompt inline, write to file, call with gemini-2.5-flash.
Model Selection
| Mode | Model | Why |
|---|---|---|
| review, debug, quick | gemini-2.5-flash |
Fast, good for straightforward analysis |
| architect, security-scan | gemini-2.5-pro |
Better reasoning for complex trade-offs |
Check current model IDs if errors occur — they change frequently:
curl -s "https://generativelanguage.googleapis.com/v1beta/models?key=$GEMINI_API_KEY" | python3 -c "import sys,json; [print(m['name']) for m in json.load(sys.stdin)['models'] if 'gemini' in m['name']]"
When to Use
Good use cases:
- Before committing major changes (final review)
- When stuck debugging after multiple attempts
- Architecture decisions with multiple valid options
- Security-sensitive code review
Avoid using for:
- Simple syntax checks (Claude handles these faster)
- Every single edit (too slow, unnecessary)
- Questions with obvious answers
Prompt Construction
Critical: Always use the AI-to-AI prompting format. Write the full prompt to a file — never pass code inline via bash arguments (shell escaping will break it).
When building the prompt:
- Start with the AI-to-AI header from references/prompt-templates.md
- Append the mode-specific template
- Append the file contents with clear
--- filename ---separators - Write to
.claude/artifacts/gemini-prompt.txt - Generate and run the API call script
Reference Files
| When | Read |
|---|---|
| Building prompts for any mode | references/prompt-templates.md |
How to use gemini-peer-review on Cursor
AI-first code editor with Composer
Prerequisites
Before installing skills in Cursor, ensure your development environment meets these requirements:
- ›Cursor installed and configured on your development machine
- ›Node.js version 16.0+ with npm package manager (verify with
node --version) - ›Active project directory or workspace where you want to add gemini-peer-review
Execute installation command
Execute the skills CLI command in your project's root directory to begin installation:
The skills CLI fetches gemini-peer-review from GitHub repository jezweb/claude-skills and configures it for Cursor.
Select Cursor when prompted
The CLI will show a list of available agents. Use arrow keys to navigate and space to select Cursor:
Verify installation
Confirm successful installation by checking the skill directory location:
Reload or restart Cursor to activate gemini-peer-review. Access the skill through slash commands (e.g., /gemini-peer-review) or your agent's skill management interface.
Security & Verification Notice
We perform automated surface-level scans (Gen AI Scanner, Socket, Snyk) during installation. These checks detect common vulnerabilities but do not guarantee complete security. Always review skill source code and verify the publisher's reputation before production use.
Skills execute code in your development environment. Always verify the publisher's identity, review recent commits, and test in isolated environments before production deployment.
List & Monetize Your Skill
Submit your Claude Code skill and start earning
Use Cases▌
User Story & Requirements Generation
Create detailed user stories, acceptance criteria, and feature specs
Example
Generate user stories for 'password reset feature' with acceptance criteria, edge cases, and test scenarios
Reduce spec writing time by 50%, ensure comprehensive coverage
Competitive Analysis
Research competitors, compare features, identify gaps
Example
Analyze 5 competitor products, create feature comparison matrix, suggest differentiation opportunities
Complete competitive research in 2 hours instead of 2 days
Roadmap Prioritization
Evaluate features using frameworks (RICE, ICE, Kano) and create prioritized backlogs
Example
Score 20 feature ideas using RICE framework, generate prioritized roadmap with rationale
Make data-driven prioritization decisions faster
Stakeholder Communication
Draft PRDs, status updates, and stakeholder presentations
Example
Create executive summary of Q3 roadmap, monthly progress report, feature launch announcement
Save 3-5 hours/week on communication overhead
Implementation Guide▌
Prerequisites
- ›Claude Desktop or compatible AI client
- ›Access to product documentation and roadmap tools (Jira, Notion, etc.)
- ›Understanding of product management frameworks (RICE, Jobs-to-be-Done, etc.)
- ›Stakeholder contact information and communication channels
Time Estimate
30-60 minutes to see productivity improvements
Installation Steps
- 1.Install product management skill
- 2.Start with user story generation for known feature
- 3.Progress to competitive analysis: research 2-3 competitors
- 4.Use for roadmap prioritization: apply RICE/ICE scoring
- 5.Draft stakeholder communications and refine based on feedback
- 6.Build template library for recurring PM tasks
- 7.Share effective prompts with product team
Common Pitfalls
- ⚠Not validating competitive research—verify facts before sharing
- ⚠Accepting user stories without involving engineering team
- ⚠Over-relying on frameworks without qualitative judgment
- ⚠Not customizing outputs to company culture and communication style
- ⚠Skipping stakeholder validation of generated requirements
Best Practices▌
✓ Do
- +Validate research and competitive analysis with real data
- +Collaborate with engineering when generating technical requirements
- +Customize frameworks and templates to your company context
- +Use skill for first drafts, refine with stakeholder input
- +Document successful prompt patterns for PM tasks
- +Combine AI efficiency with human judgment and intuition
✗ Don't
- −Don't publish competitive analysis without fact-checking
- −Don't finalize user stories without engineering review
- −Don't make prioritization decisions solely on AI scoring
- −Don't skip customer validation of generated requirements
- −Don't ignore company-specific context and culture
💡 Pro Tips
- ★Provide context: company goals, constraints, customer feedback
- ★Ask for alternatives: 'Show 3 ways to prioritize this roadmap'
- ★Request stakeholder-specific formatting: 'Executive summary vs. engineering spec'
- ★Use skill for 70% generation + 30% customization to company needs
When to Use This▌
✓ Use When
Use for user story writing, competitive research, roadmap prioritization, stakeholder communication, and PRD drafting. Best for reducing repetitive documentation and research work.
✗ Avoid When
Avoid for strategic product vision (requires deep customer empathy), pricing decisions (needs market and financial expertise), or when face-to-face customer discovery is more valuable than speed.
Learning Path▌
- 1Basic: user stories, feature specs, status updates
- 2Intermediate: competitive analysis, prioritization frameworks, PRDs
- 3Advanced: product strategy, go-to-market planning, OKR setting
- 4Expert: product vision, market positioning, business model innovation
Discussion
Product Hunt–style comments (not star reviews)- No comments yet — start the thread.
Ratings
4.8★★★★★63 reviews- ★★★★★Mia Okafor· Dec 28, 2024
Solid pick for teams standardizing on skills: gemini-peer-review is focused, and the summary matches what you get after install.
- ★★★★★Hana Zhang· Dec 28, 2024
gemini-peer-review reduced setup friction for our internal harness; good balance of opinion and flexibility.
- ★★★★★Luis Sethi· Dec 24, 2024
gemini-peer-review fits our agent workflows well — practical, well scoped, and easy to wire into existing repos.
- ★★★★★Dhruvi Jain· Dec 8, 2024
gemini-peer-review has been reliable in day-to-day use. Documentation quality is above average for community skills.
- ★★★★★Lucas Perez· Dec 8, 2024
I recommend gemini-peer-review for anyone iterating fast on agent tooling; clear intent and a small, reviewable surface area.
- ★★★★★Oshnikdeep· Nov 27, 2024
Solid pick for teams standardizing on skills: gemini-peer-review is focused, and the summary matches what you get after install.
- ★★★★★Ama Sanchez· Nov 27, 2024
gemini-peer-review fits our agent workflows well — practical, well scoped, and easy to wire into existing repos.
- ★★★★★Mia Liu· Nov 27, 2024
gemini-peer-review is among the better-maintained entries we tried; worth keeping pinned for repeat workflows.
- ★★★★★Ama Abbas· Nov 19, 2024
gemini-peer-review has been reliable in day-to-day use. Documentation quality is above average for community skills.
- ★★★★★Anika Gonzalez· Nov 19, 2024
Registry listing for gemini-peer-review matched our evaluation — installs cleanly and behaves as described in the markdown.
showing 1-10 of 63