promotion-packet-writer

name

promotion-packet-writer

description

Assemble a promotion case/packet for an engineer — evidence of impact ALREADY delivered, mapped to the target level's expectations. Inventory concrete accomplishments with measurable impact and scope of influence, map each to the leveling rubric's dimensions (scope, technical depth, leadership/influence, impact) so every dimension is covered, show the SUSTAINED pattern of operating at the level (not one heroic project), do an honest gap analysis against the target level, gather corroborating peer/manager evidence and artifacts, and write it in the committee's language (outcomes over activity). Use when preparing a promotion packet or self-assessment for leveling, or assessing readiness for the next level. Do NOT use to choose FUTURE high-leverage scope (staff-scope-selector), write one task/PR's closeout (ai-closeout-reporter), or carry evidence across stages of one effort (phased-work-handoff-designer).

Promotion Packet Writer

Purpose

Strong engineers lose promotion cycles to weak PACKETS: a list of activities instead of impact, one impressive project instead of a sustained pattern, coverage of the technical dimension but silence on influence, and no corroborating evidence a committee that doesn't know the person can trust. This skill assembles the case properly — concrete accomplishments with measurable impact, mapped to every dimension the target level's rubric requires, showing the person already operates AT the level consistently, with an honest read of where the case is thin so it's strengthened or delayed rather than sent up to fail. It documents impact ALREADY delivered, in the committee's language. It does not choose future scope, report a single task, or carry work across stages.

Use When

• Use when: preparing a promotion packet, leveling case, or self-assessment for a target level.
• Use when: assessing whether an engineer is ready for the next level and where the evidence is strong vs thin.
• Use when: an engineer does level-appropriate work but their written case reads as activity, not impact.
• Do NOT use when: the task is choosing what high-leverage scope to work on NEXT — that is staff-scope-selector (future scope, not past evidence).
• Do NOT use when: the task is a single task/PR's closeout report — that is ai-closeout-reporter.
• Do NOT use when: the task is carrying decisions/evidence across STAGES of one effort for continuation — that is phased-work-handoff-designer.

Inputs to Inspect

1. The target level and its rubric: the org's leveling expectations for the target level across scope, technical depth, leadership/influence, and impact — the criteria the case must satisfy.
2. The person's accomplishments: concrete work delivered over the review period, with outcomes and the scope of influence (self/team/org/ company).
3. Measurable impact: metrics, before/after, and business/user outcomes attributable to the work — not just what was built.
4. Corroboration available: peer/manager/stakeholder testimony, artifacts (design docs, ADRs, dashboards), and cross-functional recognition.
5. The current draft (if any): whether it reads as activity vs impact and which rubric dimensions it under-covers.

Workflow

1. Anchor on the target level's rubric. List the dimensions the target level requires (scope, technical, leadership/influence, impact). The packet's job is to show the person meets EACH — a case strong on one dimension and silent on another loses.
2. Inventory accomplishments as impact, not activity. For each, capture the outcome and its measurable impact and scope of influence. "Led the X migration" is activity; "led the X migration, cutting incident rate 40% and unblocking three teams" is impact.
3. Map each accomplishment to rubric dimensions. Show coverage across all dimensions; flag any dimension with thin evidence. This mapping is what turns a story into a case a committee can check.
4. Demonstrate the sustained pattern. Promotion is recognition that someone ALREADY operates at the level, consistently — not a reward for one heroic project. Show the pattern over time, across multiple pieces of work.
5. Do an honest gap analysis. Where is the case weak against the target level? Surface it — thin influence evidence, scope below the bar, missing corroboration. A packet sent up with hidden gaps wastes a cycle and damages credibility; naming gaps lets them be closed or the case timed better.
6. Gather corroboration. Attach peer/manager/stakeholder evidence and artifacts. A committee trusts corroborated impact over self-assertion.
7. Write in the committee's language. Frame in the rubric's terms, lead with outcomes, be concise and evidence-first. Cut activity that doesn't demonstrate a dimension.
8. Deliver the packet and the gap analysis in the Output Format — honestly, never inflating impact the evidence doesn't support.

The rubric-dimension map, the activity-to-impact rewrite guide, the sustained-pattern test, and the gap-analysis format: references/promo-packet-sheet.md.

Output Format

PROMOTION PACKET — <person> → <target level>
Rubric dimensions: scope · technical · leadership/influence · impact
Accomplishments (impact, not activity):
  <work> — outcome + MEASURABLE impact + scope of influence — maps to <dimension(s)>
Dimension coverage: <each dimension: strong | adequate | THIN>
Sustained pattern: <evidence the person already operates at the level, over time>
Corroboration:    <peer/manager/stakeholder evidence; artifacts>
GAP ANALYSIS:     <where the case is weak vs the target level — honest>
Recommendation:   ready | strengthen-then-submit | not-yet (with what's missing)
Boundaries:       future scope → staff-scope-selector; one task → ai-closeout-reporter;
                  cross-stage evidence → phased-work-handoff-designer

Validation Checklist

• The target level's rubric dimensions are enumerated and the packet addresses EACH.
• Accomplishments are stated as impact (outcome + measurable effect + scope), not activity.
• Each accomplishment maps to rubric dimension(s); thin dimensions are flagged.
• A sustained pattern of operating at the level is demonstrated, not one project.
• An honest gap analysis names where the case is weak.
• Corroborating evidence and artifacts are gathered.
• Impact is not inflated beyond what the evidence supports.
• Future-scope, single-task, and cross-stage concerns are handed to their owning skills.

Gotchas

• Activity is not impact. "Refactored the auth module" tells a committee nothing; "refactored auth, eliminating a class of outage and cutting onboarding time for new services in half" is a case. Rewrite every line to its outcome.
• One heroic project is not a promotion. Committees promote a sustained pattern of operating at the level; a single spike reads as a stretch, not the new baseline. Show the pattern.
• A packet strong on the technical dimension and silent on influence fails at levels where influence IS the level. Cover every dimension the rubric demands, or name the gap.
• Hiding a real gap doesn't close it — the committee finds it, and the credibility hit outlasts the cycle. Surface gaps and time or strengthen the case honestly.
• Uncorroborated self-assertion is discounted; the same claim with a peer's or stakeholder's confirmation lands. Gather the evidence.
• Inflating impact to fill a thin case is a short-term move with a long-term cost. Write the honest case; if it's not there yet, say what's missing.
• This documents PAST impact. If you're choosing what to work on next, that's staff-scope-selector.

Stop Conditions

• The task is choosing future high-leverage scope → route to staff-scope-selector.
• The task is a single task/PR closeout, or carrying evidence across stages of one effort → route to ai-closeout-reporter or phased-work-handoff-designer.
• The gap analysis shows the person is not yet at the level → say so with what's missing; recommend strengthen-then-submit or not-yet rather than writing an inflated case that will fail.
• Impact claims can't be substantiated with evidence or corroboration → do not assert them; flag the missing evidence to gather rather than fabricating impact.

Supporting Files

• references/promo-packet-sheet.md — the rubric-dimension map, the activity-to-impact rewrite guide, the sustained-pattern test, and the gap-analysis format.
• evals/evals.json — behavior cases including the activity-to-impact rewrite, the dimension-coverage check, and the honest not-yet gap.
• evals/trigger-evals.json — discrimination against staff-scope-selector (future scope vs past impact), ai-closeout-reporter (one task), and phased-work-handoff-designer (cross-stage evidence).