Performance Review Coach

Performance-review coach

Source: points/performance-review-rules.md and points/banned-jargon.md. Read those first.

What this skill does

Given a draft review (or a target person + context), produce a review that the recipient would save if their house were on fire. Most reviews fail by being written ABOUT the person, leading with the negative, ambushing, or psychoanalyzing — this skill catches all four.

The philosophy in one line

A review is a letter to one person, not a report card sent up to management. Read aloud, it should sound like you talking to them. If it reads like it's written to their mother, rewrite it.

Mode 1 — Draft from scratch

If the user gives you a person + context, walk through Kramon's seven rules in order before writing:

1. Letter form — write to them, not about them. "You ably led..." not "Glenn ably led..."
2. What you LIKE first — ask the user for the 2-3 most significant accomplishments. Cite colleagues if any said something specific. Never lead with the negative. Use the ~20:1 positive ratio as a rough check; if every paragraph is critique, rewrite.
3. What you WOULD LIKE — convert blunt feedback to "what I like + what I would like." See the reframing table in performance-review-rules.md. Phrase as a question where possible.
4. Near-term goals — specific, named, with what you will look for.
5. Long-term goals including the next job — name the role they likely want next; name the 2-3 competencies they need to develop to get there. This is the move that earns the most loyalty.
6. Colleague feedback — if you have it, fold it in directly ("your colleagues describe you as..."). It lands ten times harder than the boss's own praise.
7. Vivid examples — every claim, positive or negative, anchored to a specific moment, project, or behavior. Vague reviews are the worst kind.
8. Thank you — close with a specific thank-you. Two words minimum, ideally a paragraph.

Then write. Length target: 400 words for a peer or report; 600+ for a star performer where the long-term-job section is fully built out.

Mode 2 — Critique an existing draft

Mark the draft against the seven rules. Quote the specific lines that fail and rewrite them inline. Flag any of these on sight:

• Third-person voice ("Peter should strive to...") — rewrite to second person.
• Lead-with-the-negative — restructure so the first paragraph is what you like.
• Psychoanalysis ("your divorce affected your performance," "we understand you've had a tough year") — cut entirely. Suggest the user have a private conversation instead.
• Ambush (any negative item the user has not discussed before) — ask the user whether they've raised it. If not, either remove from the review or instruct the user to discuss it with the person before finalizing.
• The B-word ("boring") — never. Replace with the specific length issue, specific fix.
• Vague verbs ("actively involved in," "will continue the evolution") — rewrite with named projects, named outcomes.
• Passive-aggressive credit ("has been actively involved on our team that won four Pulitzers" — did they win them or not?) — assign credit cleanly.
• No long-term horizon — if the review only covers the current role and the current year, add the next-job paragraph.
• Closing with a process note instead of thank-you — rewrite the ending.

Mode 3 — Self-review

If the user is writing about themselves, ask for:

1. Most significant accomplishments — specific, named, with real numbers.
2. Goals for the current year — what you will deliver, by when.
3. Ambitions for the years beyond, including the job you'd want next.

Then write it in the same letter voice as a peer review, but addressed to the reader's manager. The self-review's job is to give the manager something concrete to react to — not to be modest, not to be a brag sheet.

Mode 4 — Reviewing the weakest performer

The highest-stakes review. The user's whole team is watching this one. Add to the standard mode 1:

• Schedule the follow-up explicitly in the review ("we'll meet every other Monday to review progress on the goals below").
• Name the stakes clearly ("unless we see improvement on [specific behaviors], we'll need to find you a different role") — without this, a later managed-out conversation is unfair.
• Behaviors, not character ("colleagues say you should stop blaming others", not "you are a blamer").
• Show you're trying to help — name what you will do: weekly check-ins, mentor intro, scope reduction, training budget.

The angels on your shoulder are the colleagues who want this person to either improve or move on; write the review they would consider fair.

What never goes in a review

• Speculation about why the person had a bad year (divorces, illnesses, mental health, family troubles). Behavior only.
• Bad news the user has not already raised with the person.
• Generic adjectives doing the work of evidence (significant, substantial, robust, comprehensive, impactful). Cut them or name the number.
• Sarcasm. Reviewers cannot always tell, and it lives in the file forever.
• A "next steps" or "look forward to" line as the closing. Close with thank-you.

The reframing kit

For converting blunt manager-speak into review-grade language. (Full table in performance-review-rules.md.) Pattern: name what you LIKE first, then what you WOULD LIKE, focused on the WORK, phrased as a question.

| Blunt | Better | |---|---| | "You don't smile enough." | "In client meetings, your enthusiasm doesn't always show in your face. Worth thinking about whether the room can read what you feel." | | "You're intellectually intimidating." | "We all know how smart you are. You have more influence with a little self-deprecating humor." | | "Stop cutting off colleagues." | "I love the ideas you share. Give the room more space to get there too." | | "I'm sick of you being late." | "I'd rather you be on time at 90% than late at 100%. Can we talk about how to meet our deadlines?" | | "You're burning out." | "I'm concerned about whether you can sustain this pace. Is it time to take a break?" |

When you finish

Hand back: (a) the rewritten review as a letter to the person, (b) a 3-bullet summary of what you changed and why, (c) any items you flagged as needing the user to discuss before the review is shared.

The test

Would the person save the review if their house were on fire? If yes, ship it. For your weakest performer, the bar is: even on the day you have to manage them out, they say "you were always fair." Both bars are within reach. Neither is automatic.

Source & license

This open-source skill is cataloged on AgentStack and links to its original source — we do not rehost the code.

• Author: kalyvask
• Source: kalyvask/winning-writing
• License: MIT

Install and usage instructions live in the source repository linked above.