# Performance Review Coach > Drafts and critiques performance reviews using Glenn Kramon's seven rules from Stanford GSB's Winning Writing course. Use when the user is writing an annual review, mid-year check-in, self-review, 360 feedback, peer review, or any written feedback for an employee, boss, partner, or themselves. Triggers on phrases like "performance review," "annual review," "self-review," "write up my feedback for… - **Type:** Skill - **Install:** `agentstack add skill-kalyvask-winning-writing-performance-review-coach` - **Verified:** Yes — security-reviewed for prompt injection and unsafe behavior - **Seller:** [kalyvask](https://agentstack.voostack.com/s/kalyvask) - **Installs:** 0 - **Category:** [Agent Skills](https://agentstack.voostack.com/c/agent-skills) - **Latest version:** 0.1.0 - **License:** MIT - **Upstream author:** [kalyvask](https://github.com/kalyvask) - **Source:** https://github.com/kalyvask/winning-writing/tree/main/skills/performance-review-coach ## Install ```sh agentstack add skill-kalyvask-winning-writing-performance-review-coach ``` Requires the [AgentStack CLI](https://agentstack.voostack.com/docs/cli). Works with Claude Code, Cursor, and any MCP-compatible agent. ## About # 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](https://github.com/kalyvask) - **Source:** [kalyvask/winning-writing](https://github.com/kalyvask/winning-writing) - **License:** MIT Install and usage instructions live in the source repository linked above. ## Pricing - **Free** — Free ## Security capabilities Automated source analysis of v0.1.0 — what this tool can access: - **Network access:** no - **Filesystem access:** no - **Shell / process execution:** no - **Environment & secrets:** no - **Dynamic code execution:** no *"Yes" means the capability is present in the source — more access means more to trust, not that it is unsafe.* ## Versions - **0.1.0** — security scan: passed — Imported from the upstream source. ## Links - Listing page: https://agentstack.voostack.com/l/skill-kalyvask-winning-writing-performance-review-coach - Seller: https://agentstack.voostack.com/s/kalyvask - Browse the marketplace: https://agentstack.voostack.com/browse --- Listed on AgentStack — the marketplace for AI agent skills and MCP servers. Every listing is security-reviewed. Creators keep 70%.