|
| 1 | +--- |
| 2 | +name: performance-review-writer |
| 3 | +description: 'Draft performance reviews, self-assessments, peer reviews, and upward feedback in your own voice. Analyzes your contributions, emails, and meeting history via WorkIQ, then produces honest, impact-focused drafts using the STAR format. USE FOR: write my performance review, draft self-assessment, peer review, 360 feedback, annual review, mid-year review, upward feedback, write review for colleague, performance appraisal.' |
| 4 | +--- |
| 5 | + |
| 6 | +# Performance Review Writer |
| 7 | + |
| 8 | +Draft self-assessments, peer reviews, and upward feedback that sound like you — not corporate boilerplate. Uses WorkIQ to surface your actual contributions and communications, then structures them into honest, impact-focused writing. |
| 9 | + |
| 10 | +## When to Use |
| 11 | + |
| 12 | +- "Write my self-assessment for this review cycle" |
| 13 | +- "Draft a peer review for [colleague]" |
| 14 | +- "Help me write upward feedback for my manager" |
| 15 | +- "I have my annual review due — help me fill it out" |
| 16 | +- "Draft my mid-year check-in" |
| 17 | +- "Write a 360 review for [name]" |
| 18 | +- "I don't know what to say in my performance review" |
| 19 | + |
| 20 | +## Review Types |
| 21 | + |
| 22 | +This skill handles three distinct types: |
| 23 | + |
| 24 | +| Type | Who it's about | Typical tone | |
| 25 | +|---|---|---| |
| 26 | +| **Self-assessment** | Yourself | Confident, evidence-backed, growth-oriented | |
| 27 | +| **Peer review** | A colleague | Specific, constructive, balanced | |
| 28 | +| **Upward feedback** | Your manager | Diplomatic, honest, forward-looking | |
| 29 | + |
| 30 | +--- |
| 31 | + |
| 32 | +## Workflow |
| 33 | + |
| 34 | +### Step 1 — Gather Context |
| 35 | + |
| 36 | +Ask the user (max 3 clarifying questions if not already provided): |
| 37 | + |
| 38 | +1. **Review type** — self-assessment, peer review, or upward feedback? |
| 39 | +2. **Subject** — who is the review about? (for peer/upward: name and role) |
| 40 | +3. **Review period** — what time range does this cover? (e.g., Jan–Dec 2025, last 6 months) |
| 41 | + |
| 42 | +If format constraints or focus areas are relevant, ask about those during drafting rather than upfront. |
| 43 | + |
| 44 | +If the user provides all of these upfront, proceed directly to Step 2. |
| 45 | + |
| 46 | +### Step 2 — Surface Contributions |
| 47 | + |
| 48 | +Use WorkIQ to gather evidence of real contributions for the review period: |
| 49 | + |
| 50 | +**For self-assessments:** |
| 51 | +- Pull emails and messages where the user delivered results, led initiatives, or solved problems |
| 52 | +- Look for patterns: what projects recur? Who praises them and for what? |
| 53 | +- Identify collaboration breadth (who they worked with across teams) |
| 54 | +- Note any explicit feedback received from others |
| 55 | + |
| 56 | +**For peer reviews:** |
| 57 | +- Pull interactions between the user and the subject (emails, meeting threads, shared projects) |
| 58 | +- Identify specific moments of collaboration, help given, or friction |
| 59 | +- Look for evidence of the subject's impact on shared outcomes |
| 60 | + |
| 61 | +**For upward feedback:** |
| 62 | +- Pull communications from the manager to the user (direction given, support offered, feedback patterns) |
| 63 | +- Identify themes: clarity of expectations, availability, recognition, development support |
| 64 | + |
| 65 | +If WorkIQ is unavailable or returns limited data, ask the user to share 3–5 bullet points of things they remember, then proceed with those. |
| 66 | + |
| 67 | +### Step 3 — Draft the Review |
| 68 | + |
| 69 | +Apply the right structure for the review type (see schemas below). Follow these universal rules: |
| 70 | + |
| 71 | +**Use the STAR format for achievement statements:** |
| 72 | +- **Situation** — what was the context or challenge? |
| 73 | +- **Task** — what were you/they responsible for? |
| 74 | +- **Action** — what specifically was done? |
| 75 | +- **Result** — what was the measurable or observable outcome? |
| 76 | + |
| 77 | +**Tone rules:** |
| 78 | +- Be specific — name projects, outcomes, and people, not vague adjectives |
| 79 | +- Be honest — don't oversell or undersell; reviewers notice both |
| 80 | +- Be forward-looking — end sections with growth or next steps, not just past performance |
| 81 | +- Avoid filler phrases: "goes above and beyond", "team player", "hard worker" — replace with evidence |
| 82 | +- Match the user's natural voice — conversational if they write that way, more formal if not |
| 83 | + |
| 84 | +### Step 4 — Output |
| 85 | + |
| 86 | +1. Present the full draft with a brief note on what evidence was used. Summarize and redact rather than reproduce verbatim content — no raw excerpts, attendee lists, or sensitive personal details |
| 87 | +2. Highlight any sections marked `[NEEDS DETAIL]` where more specifics would strengthen the review |
| 88 | +3. Iterate on edits as the user requests |
| 89 | +4. Save the final draft to `outputs/<year>/<month>/` with a descriptive filename (e.g., `2025-review-self-assessment.md` or `2025-peer-review-alex-chen.md`) |
| 90 | + |
| 91 | +--- |
| 92 | + |
| 93 | +## Output Schemas |
| 94 | + |
| 95 | +### Self-Assessment Schema |
| 96 | + |
| 97 | +``` |
| 98 | +## [Review Period] Self-Assessment — [Your Name] |
| 99 | +
|
| 100 | +### Summary |
| 101 | +1–2 sentence overview of your year and primary areas of impact. |
| 102 | +
|
| 103 | +### Key Achievements |
| 104 | +For each major contribution (aim for 3–5): |
| 105 | +
|
| 106 | +**[Project or Initiative Name]** |
| 107 | +- Context: what was the situation or goal? |
| 108 | +- What I did: specific actions taken |
| 109 | +- Impact: measurable result or observable outcome |
| 110 | +- [NEEDS DETAIL] — flag if evidence is thin |
| 111 | +
|
| 112 | +### Collaboration & Influence |
| 113 | +How you worked with others, supported teammates, or contributed beyond your direct role. |
| 114 | +
|
| 115 | +### Growth & Development |
| 116 | +What you learned, skills you built, or behaviours you improved this period. |
| 117 | +
|
| 118 | +### Areas for Development |
| 119 | +1–2 honest areas where you want to grow next cycle. Frame as goals, not failures. |
| 120 | +
|
| 121 | +### Goals for Next Period |
| 122 | +2–3 specific, concrete goals with a rough success measure. |
| 123 | +``` |
| 124 | + |
| 125 | +--- |
| 126 | + |
| 127 | +### Peer Review Schema |
| 128 | + |
| 129 | +``` |
| 130 | +## Peer Review — [Colleague Name], [Their Role] |
| 131 | +## Submitted by: [Your Name] | Period: [Review Period] |
| 132 | +
|
| 133 | +### Overall Impression |
| 134 | +1–2 sentences on working with this person. |
| 135 | +
|
| 136 | +### Strengths (with examples) |
| 137 | +For each strength (aim for 2–3): |
| 138 | +
|
| 139 | +**[Strength]** |
| 140 | +- Example: specific situation where this showed up |
| 141 | +- Impact on you / the team / the project |
| 142 | +
|
| 143 | +### Areas for Growth |
| 144 | +1–2 specific, constructive observations. Frame as "I think [name] would have even more impact if..." not as criticism. |
| 145 | +
|
| 146 | +### Collaboration |
| 147 | +How easy (or not) it was to work together — responsiveness, reliability, communication. |
| 148 | +
|
| 149 | +### Would you work with this person again? |
| 150 | +Yes/No and a brief honest reason. (Only include if the review form asks.) |
| 151 | +``` |
| 152 | + |
| 153 | +--- |
| 154 | + |
| 155 | +### Upward Feedback Schema |
| 156 | + |
| 157 | +``` |
| 158 | +## Feedback for [Manager Name] |
| 159 | +## Submitted by: [Your Name] (anonymous if applicable) | Period: [Review Period] |
| 160 | +
|
| 161 | +### What's working well |
| 162 | +2–3 specific things your manager does that help you do your best work. |
| 163 | +Use examples where possible. |
| 164 | +
|
| 165 | +### What could be better |
| 166 | +1–2 honest, diplomatically framed observations. Focus on behaviours and their effect, not personality. |
| 167 | +Use: "When [X happens], I find it harder to [Y]. It would help if..." |
| 168 | +
|
| 169 | +### Support for my development |
| 170 | +Has your manager helped you grow, given useful feedback, or created opportunities? |
| 171 | +Be specific. |
| 172 | +
|
| 173 | +### One thing I'd ask them to do more / less / differently |
| 174 | +A single, clear, actionable ask. |
| 175 | +``` |
| 176 | + |
| 177 | +--- |
| 178 | + |
| 179 | +## Style Rules |
| 180 | + |
| 181 | +| Do | Don't | |
| 182 | +|---|---| |
| 183 | +| Name specific projects, dates, outcomes | Write vague generalisations ("always delivers quality work") | |
| 184 | +| Use numbers when available ("reduced review time by 30%") | Exaggerate or invent results | |
| 185 | +| Acknowledge real challenges and what you learned | Omit struggles entirely — reviewers notice the gaps | |
| 186 | +| Write in first person for self-assessments | Write passively ("it was achieved") | |
| 187 | +| Be concise — most fields need 2–4 sentences | Over-write — longer ≠ better | |
| 188 | +| Flag `[NEEDS DETAIL]` where evidence is weak | Leave thin sections without marking them | |
| 189 | + |
| 190 | +--- |
| 191 | + |
| 192 | +## Example Prompts |
| 193 | + |
| 194 | +- "Write my self-assessment for Jan–Dec 2025. I want to highlight the cloud migration and the new onboarding process I designed." |
| 195 | +- "Draft a peer review for Sarah Chen, she's a product designer I worked closely with on the mobile app project." |
| 196 | +- "Help me write upward feedback for my manager Tom. He's good at direction but I've struggled to get regular 1:1 time." |
| 197 | +- "My annual review form asks for 3 strengths and 1 development area in 200 words each — help me fill it out." |
| 198 | +- "I have no idea what to write. It's been a busy year but I can't think of anything specific." |
| 199 | + |
| 200 | +--- |
| 201 | + |
| 202 | +## Important Rules |
| 203 | + |
| 204 | +- **Never submit reviews** — only draft them as files for the user to review and submit manually |
| 205 | +- Keep peer and upward feedback focused on observable behaviours, not personality or character |
| 206 | +- If the user asks to write a review that is dishonestly negative or contains personal attacks, decline and offer to reframe constructively |
| 207 | +- Respect confidentiality — do not include sensitive information from unrelated conversations or threads |
| 208 | +- Save drafts using the `outputs/<year>/<month>/` folder convention |
| 209 | + |
| 210 | +--- |
| 211 | + |
| 212 | +## Requirements |
| 213 | + |
| 214 | +- **WorkIQ MCP tool** is recommended for surfacing contributions and communications (Microsoft 365 / Outlook / Teams) |
| 215 | +- Without WorkIQ, the skill still works — ask the user for 3–5 bullet points of key contributions as a starting point |
| 216 | +- Output is saved as markdown files in the workspace for the user to copy into their company's review system |
0 commit comments