# Write Performance Review > > - **Type:** Skill - **Install:** `agentstack add skill-pierrickmartos-leadership-skills-write-performance-review` - **Verified:** Yes — security-reviewed for prompt injection and unsafe behavior - **Seller:** [PierrickMartos](https://agentstack.voostack.com/s/pierrickmartos) - **Installs:** 0 - **Category:** [Agent Skills](https://agentstack.voostack.com/c/agent-skills) - **Latest version:** 0.1.0 - **License:** MIT - **Upstream author:** [PierrickMartos](https://github.com/PierrickMartos) - **Source:** https://github.com/PierrickMartos/Leadership-Skills/tree/main/performance-management/skills/write-performance-review ## Install ```sh agentstack add skill-pierrickmartos-leadership-skills-write-performance-review ``` Requires the [AgentStack CLI](https://agentstack.voostack.com/docs/cli). Works with Claude Code, Cursor, and any MCP-compatible agent. ## About # Write Performance Review Help a manager write a performance review that is fact-based, strengths-first, and anchored on role expectations. A performance appraisal is a manager's informed opinion of an employee's work — not an empirically provable document, and not a negotiation. > **Scope:** This skill covers the *Evaluate* phase of the Coach → Evaluate → Discuss cycle. > It produces the written review. It does not cover ongoing coaching or the review meeting itself. --- ## Step 1: Gather context Ask the manager for the following. Do not proceed until you have enough for a fact-based assessment. ### a. Employee and role - Employee name, role title, and level (e.g., Senior Engineer, Product Manager II) - Review period (e.g., "H2 2025", "2025 full year", "Q3-Q4 2025") - Goals or objectives set at the start of the period. If none were formally set, ask: "What were the key expectations for this person during this period?" ### b. Evidence sources Ask what's available. Assign trust levels internally — do not share these with the manager: | Source | Trust | Notes | |--------|-------|-------| | Manager's own assessment or notes | High | Overall view but may lack examples | | Running performance log | High | Best source — continuous, specific | | Mid-period review | Medium-High (manager sections), Medium (employee sections) | Check if goals changed | | Employee self-review | Medium | Employees tend to overinflate impact; cross-reference | | One-to-one notes | Medium | Can be imprecise; assume team effort unless explicitly stated otherwise | | Peer feedback / 360 reviews | Medium-High | More reliable when multiple peers corroborate | | Business metrics or dashboards | High | Objective, but may lack context | If the manager has no running performance log, note this limitation internally and reconstruct evidence from whatever sources are available. ### c. Company context (bring your own framework) Ask: > "Does your company have a career ladder, competency framework, or leveling rubric? > You can point me to a file, paste the relevant section for this person's level, > describe it in your own words, or skip it — I'll use general industry expectations." Ask: > "What is your company's rating scale? (e.g., Exceeds / Meets / Below, or 1-5, etc.)" > > If none provided, default to: **Outperformed / Delivered / Inconsistent** ### d. Clarification Ask clarifying questions before writing if: - The employee's level or role expectations are unclear - Key achievements lack sufficient detail or context - Sources contradict each other - Goals from the start of the period are missing or ambiguous - Expected rating or promotion considerations are unclear --- ## Step 2: Cross-reference sources Before writing, synthesize across all sources: ### a. Corroborate - Check if achievements claimed in the self-review are supported by other sources - Look for collaboration and impact mentioned in peer feedback or teammate documents - Surface contributions not in the employee's own documents ### b. Confidentiality rules - **Never cite source documents explicitly.** Do not write "as noted in his self-review" or "her one-to-one notes confirm." Present information directly. - Attribute feedback generically: "A colleague highlighted that..." or use direct quotes with names when the feedback was given openly. ### c. Quoting rules - Do not quote one-to-one notes directly. Rephrase. - Peer or colleague quotes are acceptable when they add specificity. Format as: > _"[Quote]"_ — [Name] - Career framework quotes are acceptable as they are official documentation. ### d. Focus on the employee's impact Cross-references should highlight what the employee contributed, not what others did for them. Reframe: "Julia learned to scope PoCs appropriately" rather than "John taught Julia how to scope." --- ## Step 3: Anchor on expectations Before writing the narrative, restate the measuring stick: > **Role expectations:** [Summarize what's expected at this level — from the career framework if provided, or general industry expectations] > > **Goals for this period:** [List the goals or expectations set at the start] This is the foundation the review evaluates against. Start from the job, not the person. --- ## Step 4: Write the review Structure the review strengths-first. Lead with what the employee accomplished before addressing growth areas. ### 4a. Main Achievements (3-5 themed sections) Group related work into themed narratives (e.g., "Technical Leadership", "Customer Impact", "Process Improvement"). Each follows the **Context → Actions → Results** pattern: - **Context:** The situation, challenge, or opportunity - **Actions:** What the employee specifically did — their decisions, leadership, execution - **Results:** Concrete outcomes. End each section with a clear results summary. Include rich evidence: - Business metrics: revenue impact, adoption rates, conversion rates - Quality metrics: SLA counts, incident rates, bug counts (with comparisons) - Productivity metrics: features delivered, timelines met - Comparative context: vs. prior period, vs. expectations, vs. similar scope Include colleague feedback where it adds specificity and credibility. ### 4b. Team Impact & Collaboration Cover three dimensions from cross-referenced sources: - **Direct support:** How did they unblock or help teammates? Knowledge sharing, mentorship, pair work. - **Process and culture:** Improvements to workflows, documentation, team rituals, morale. - **Broader organizational impact:** Cross-team collaboration, hiring support, knowledge sharing outside the team. ### 4c. Difficulties & Learnings Focus on meaningful growth challenges, not routine problem-solving: - What made the challenge genuinely hard? - How did the situation evolve during the period? - What helped — manager support, process changes, peer help? - Be honest about remaining gaps. If something is still in progress, say so. ### 4d. Objectives Assessment Map each goal from the start of the period: - State the original goal - Assess: **Achieved / Partially achieved / Pivoted / Not achieved** - Explain context if goals changed or weren't met - Note what was delivered instead if focus shifted ### 4e. Overall Performance Summarize the year/period: - **Business impact** — lead with outcomes - **Broader contributions** — hiring, process improvements, cross-team work - **Growth trajectory** — how the employee evolved, skills developed - **Conclusion** — 2-3 sentences on the employee's overall arc ### 4f. Career Framework Assessment (if framework provided) - **Strengths:** 1-3 traits/competencies demonstrated consistently, with specific evidence. Note any demonstrated above current level. - **Development areas:** 1-3 traits needing growth, with specific framework expectations and observed gaps. If no framework was provided, skip this section. ### 4g. Development Plan Every review must include forward-looking development: - 1-3 concrete development actions for next period - Connect each to specific skills, competencies, or career goals - Suggest concrete opportunities (stretch projects, mentoring, training) where possible ### 4h. Rating & Justification State the rating using the company's scale. Justify with specific evidence — not generalities. --- ## Step 5: Bias check Before finalizing, review the draft against the six common appraisal biases: | Bias | Check | Fix | |------|-------|-----| | **Recency** | Does the review over-index on the last few weeks? | Ensure evidence spans the full review period. | | **Strictness / Leniency** | Is this rating consistent with how you'd rate others at the same level for the same output? | Compare against the role expectations, not your general disposition. | | **Horns / Halo** | Is one strong positive or negative coloring the entire review? | Check: does each section have its own independent evidence? | | **Similarity** | Are you rating this person higher because they think or work like you? | Focus on outcomes and behaviors, not style. | | **Central tendency** | Are you defaulting to "Delivered" to avoid differentiation? | Re-read the rating definitions. If they outperformed, say so. If they were inconsistent, say so. | | **Contrasting** | Are you comparing this person to a teammate instead of to the role expectations? | Anchor back on the goals and framework from Step 3. | Flag any bias detected and adjust the draft before producing the final review. --- ## Writing guidelines Apply these throughout: 1. **Fact-based.** Every statement backed by evidence — documents, metrics, or observed behavior. 2. **Specific.** Not "did a great job." Instead: "delivered the API docs 2 weeks early, enabling 3 prospect demos in November." 3. **Behavior-based.** Tie feedback to observable actions and outcomes, not personality traits. 4. **Names and dates.** Reference specific people, projects, customers, and timeframes. 5. **Strengths-first.** Lead with accomplishments. Most employees are good solid workers — the review should reflect that. 6. **Balanced.** Every review includes both accomplishments and constructive development feedback. 7. **Forward-looking.** Connect past performance to future expectations and growth. 8. **Show evolution.** Use before/after comparisons — start of period vs. end, or prior period vs. current. 9. **Cross-referenced.** Note when achievements are corroborated by multiple sources. 10. **End sections with results.** Achievement sections conclude with a concrete outcomes summary. 11. **Simple and readable.** Clean structure, no bureaucratic bloat. 1500-2500 words total for the review. --- ## Output format Produce the review in markdown. If the manager provided a company template, follow that structure. Otherwise use: ``` # Performance Review: [Employee Name] **Period:** [Review period] | **Role:** [Title & Level] | **Rating:** [Rating] ## Achievements [3-5 themed C-A-R sections] ## Team Impact & Collaboration [Direct support, process/culture, broader impact] ## Difficulties & Learnings [Meaningful challenges and growth] ## Objectives Assessment [Goal-by-goal assessment] ## Overall Performance [Summary: business impact, contributions, growth trajectory, conclusion] ## Career Framework Assessment *(if applicable)* [Strengths and development areas mapped to framework] ## Development Plan [1-3 concrete actions for next period] ## Rating & Justification [Rating with specific evidence] ``` --- ## Tone - Write as a thoughtful manager, not a bureaucrat. The review should sound like it was written by someone who knows this person's work well. - Be direct about both strengths and growth areas. Vague praise is as unhelpful as vague criticism. - Respect the employee's intelligence — they will read this. Don't patronize. - This is a manager's opinion, informed by evidence. Own that perspective; don't hide behind hedging language. ## Source & license This open-source skill is cataloged on AgentStack and links to its original source — we do not rehost the code. - **Author:** [PierrickMartos](https://github.com/PierrickMartos) - **Source:** [PierrickMartos/Leadership-Skills](https://github.com/PierrickMartos/Leadership-Skills) - **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-pierrickmartos-leadership-skills-write-performance-review - Seller: https://agentstack.voostack.com/s/pierrickmartos - 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%.