Performance Review Writer

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.

When to Use

• "Write my self-assessment for this review cycle"
• "Draft a peer review for [colleague]"
• "Help me write upward feedback for my manager"
• "I have my annual review due — help me fill it out"
• "Draft my mid-year check-in"
• "Write a 360 review for [name]"
• "I don't know what to say in my performance review"

Review Types

This skill handles three distinct types:

Workflow

Step 1 — Gather Context

Ask the user (max 3 clarifying questions if not already provided):

1. Review type — self-assessment, peer review, or upward feedback?
2. Subject — who is the review about? (for peer/upward: name and role)
3. Review period — what time range does this cover? (e.g., Jan–Dec 2025, last 6 months)

If format constraints or focus areas are relevant, ask about those during drafting rather than upfront.

If the user provides all of these upfront, proceed directly to Step 2.

Step 2 — Surface Contributions

Use WorkIQ to gather evidence of real contributions for the review period:

For self-assessments:

• Pull emails and messages where the user delivered results, led initiatives, or solved problems
• Look for patterns: what projects recur? Who praises them and for what?
• Identify collaboration breadth (who they worked with across teams)
• Note any explicit feedback received from others

For peer reviews:

• Pull interactions between the user and the subject (emails, meeting threads, shared projects)
• Identify specific moments of collaboration, help given, or friction
• Look for evidence of the subject's impact on shared outcomes

For upward feedback:

• Pull communications from the manager to the user (direction given, support offered, feedback patterns)
• Identify themes: clarity of expectations, availability, recognition, development support

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.

Step 3 — Draft the Review

Apply the right structure for the review type (see schemas below). Follow these universal rules:

Use the STAR format for achievement statements:

• Situation — what was the context or challenge?
• Task — what were you/they responsible for?
• Action — what specifically was done?
• Result — what was the measurable or observable outcome?

Tone rules:

• Be specific — name projects, outcomes, and people, not vague adjectives
• Be honest — don't oversell or undersell; reviewers notice both
• Be forward-looking — end sections with growth or next steps, not just past performance
• Avoid filler phrases: "goes above and beyond", "team player", "hard worker" — replace with evidence
• Match the user's natural voice — conversational if they write that way, more formal if not

Step 4 — Output

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
2. Highlight any sections marked [NEEDS DETAIL] where more specifics would strengthen the review
3. Iterate on edits as the user requests
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)

Output Schemas

Self-Assessment Schema

## [Review Period] Self-Assessment — [Your Name]

### Summary
1–2 sentence overview of your year and primary areas of impact.

### Key Achievements
For each major contribution (aim for 3–5):

**[Project or Initiative Name]**
- Context: what was the situation or goal?
- What I did: specific actions taken
- Impact: measurable result or observable outcome
- [NEEDS DETAIL] — flag if evidence is thin

### Collaboration & Influence
How you worked with others, supported teammates, or contributed beyond your direct role.

### Growth & Development

…