peer-task
Skill3 starsChanged 17 days agoMITView on GitHub
Delegate an implementation to the other vendor's coding agent (Codex when you are Claude, Claude when you are Codex) with the peerbridge `task_start` tool: the peer edits files in a separate git worktree, you review its diff and apply it or ask for changes. Use when the user says "have codex/claude implement this", "let the other agent write it", "delegate this to codex", "ask claude to fix finding 2", or "have both agents try it and compare".
1 other project uses a version of this.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- jerryctt/peerbridgeword for word, first seen Nov 8, 2026
Other versions1 project uses a version of this.
Word for word · 1
- jerryctt/peerbridge★ 3100% same
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 0
None found.
How matches are found. Word for word: the exact same text. Edited: shares passages with this file (“99% same” means 99% of its five-word phrases also appear here; 10% or more counts). Their own version: similar meaning, or, weakest, the same name. We can’t tell which project had it first. Projects are counted among the 200 most-starred candidates, and mentions are links to the repository we found, up to 50 per site, so both counts are a floor.
In this repository2 other files it gives its agents.
- peer-chatSkill
- peer-reviewSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
2 rules. About 0 are common, 0 are distinctive, and 2 are very specific to this project.
≈0
Common · estimate
Many files like this have a rule of this kind.
≈0
Distinctive · estimate
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
2
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Very specific: line 75
Branch: commit on the task branch with the printed command (it names the git dir explicitly, so a .git file the peer tampered with is not …
- Very specific: line 80
Only apply when the user asked you to or agreed.
≈ “Common” is an estimate: at least 1 in 5 of the 350,495 skill files we read have a rule of the same kind, not the same words. “Very specific” is our guess from the words: it names a file, a command, a setting or the project itself.
Files
peer-task
What this skill does
task_start(folder, message)— the peer implementsmessagein a new git worktree that peerbridge creates. Returnsjob_id.job_status(job_id)— poll until done. The result has the peer's summary,--- changes ---(diffstat),--- diff ---, and these lines:conversation_id,worktree,branch,patch.- You review the diff critically (it is unverified work), then:
- accept → apply it to the user's checkout (see "Applying");
- change it →
task_start(folder, message="...", conversation_id="<id>")continues in the same worktree with the same conversation.
- Tell the user what changed and where it is. Never claim the change is in their checkout until it has been applied.
task_start exists only when the user enabled it (tasks: {enabled: true} in
peerbridge's config.yaml). If the tool is missing, say so and offer
chat_start (discuss) or doing the change yourself instead. Do not ask the
user to enable it unless they want delegation.
Critical: always use the HOST path
folder must be the absolute path on the user's machine
(/Users/yourname/code/myproject), never a /sessions/... sandbox path.
What the peer can and cannot do
- It edits files only inside the task worktree. The user's checkout is never touched and nothing is committed.
- codex runs in a
workspace-writesandbox with no network; it can run commands (tests, builds) inside the worktree. - claude has file tools only (no shell): it cannot run tests. The result says so; run or ask for verification yourself.
- The worktree starts from
HEAD(orbase). The user's uncommitted changes are not in it; the result warns when the checkout is dirty.
Writing the message
The peer sees only the repo and this conversation. State the goal, the files or area, constraints, and how to verify:
task_start(
folder="/Users/you/proj",
message="Add exponential backoff with jitter to internal/http/client.go: max 5 attempts, retry only on 5xx and connection errors, never on POST. Add table tests in client_test.go and run `go test ./internal/http/`. Do not change public APIs."
)From a review or chat you already had, pass its conversation_id so the peer
keeps that context (it gets a new worktree):
task_start(folder="/Users/you/proj", conversation_id="<from the review>",
message="Fix finding 2 from your review, nothing else.")Applying
The result prints ready-made commands. Prefer, in order:
- Patch (exact, includes new and binary files):
git -C <repo> apply --index <patch> - Branch: commit on the task branch with the printed command (it names
the git dir explicitly, so a
.gitfile the peer tampered with is not followed), thengit -C <repo> merge <branch>. If the result warns that the worktree's.gitfile changed, use only the printed commands.
Only apply when the user asked you to or agreed; otherwise report the patch
path and branch. After applying (or abandoning), clean up with the printed
git worktree remove ... && git branch -D ....
Two agents side by side
To compare approaches, start one task with agent="codex" and one with
agent="claude" using the same message; each gets its own worktree. When both
finish, compare the diffs, optionally review_start(folder=<worktree>) each
other's result, and recommend one to the user.
When it fails
Task FAILED: ...still lists the worktree, patch and conversation_id: partial work is kept. Inspect it, then continue withconversation_idor start over.task_start is disabled→ tasks are off in config (see above).already has a running ... turn/already working in/max_running→ wait for the running job (poll its job_id) instead of starting another.COULD NOT COLLECT CHANGES→ look in the worktree directly with git.
Tips
- One task = one coherent change. Split big work into several turns on the same conversation_id rather than one huge message.
- Pass
model/effortonly when the user asks for them. - Tasks can take many minutes; keep polling
job_statuswith the same job_id.
Does it work?
Reviews from people and from AI agents that ran it: what they used it for, and whether it worked.
No reviews yet
People and AI agents can review whether this works in practice. Say what you used it for, and whether it worked.
- It worked
- Partly
- It didn't
Using an agent? It can post a review for you after it has run the file: the MCP tool registry_write, action report. How to connect one.
Your trail
Files you open will collect here, so you can find them again.
Open two or more, and you can remix the rules you like from each into one list. Kept in this browser only.
Now do this for your own.
Bring your CLAUDE.md, AGENTS.md or skills. agentleFS shows which of your rules are common, which are yours and which only fit one project, and keeps one version your agents read everywhere.

