work-chronicler-mgmt-write-review-packet

name	work-chronicler-mgmt-write-review-packet
description	Generate evidence-based performance review content for a specific direct report. Analyzes report's work history to create structured review narratives with PR/ticket citations.
user-invocable	true
disable-model-invocation	true

Write Review Packet (Manager Mode)

Generate evidence-based performance review content for a specific direct report.

Manager Mode Only

This skill requires manager mode. Verify with: work-chronicler workspace profile

If not in manager mode, run work-chronicler init --mode manager first.

Workspace

Active profile: !work-chronicler workspace profile Manager root: !work-chronicler workspace root

For non-Claude tools: Run work-chronicler workspace root to get your manager profile path.

User Input

Required:

• Report ID: The kebab-case report identifier (e.g., "alice-smith")
  • See available reports: work-chronicler reports list

Optional:

• Review period: The time range to focus on (e.g., "Q4 2025", "2025 annual review")
• Review template/questions: If your company provides specific prompts to answer
• Focus areas: Specific themes or projects to emphasize

Example invocations:

• /work-chronicler-mgmt-write-review-packet alice-smith Q4-2025
• /work-chronicler-mgmt-write-review-packet bob-jones 2025-annual, here are the review questions: [paste questions]

If the user provides a specific review template or questions, prioritize answering those over the default structure below.

Data Location

Manager mode data structure:

<manager-root>/
└── reports/
    └── <report-id>/
        ├── work-log/
        │   ├── pull-requests/
        │   │   └── <org>/<repo>/*.md
        │   └── jira/
        │       └── <org>/<project>/*.md
        ├── analysis/
        │   ├── stats.json         # Impact breakdown, repo stats
        │   ├── projects.json      # Detected project groupings
        │   └── timeline.json      # Chronological view
        ├── performance-reviews/   # IMPORTANT: Past reviews for format/context
        ├── peer-reviews/          # IMPORTANT: Peer feedback for collaboration insights
        ├── notes/                 # IMPORTANT: Manager notes about goals, focus areas
        └── outputs/               # Generated documents

Instructions

1. Validate report ID:

   • Confirm report exists in manager config
   • Use exact report ID provided by user
   • If invalid, show available reports via work-chronicler reports list

2. Read supporting documents first (critical for context):

   • performance-reviews/ - Match format, tone, and understand what's valued
   • peer-reviews/ - Collaboration effectiveness, how report is perceived by colleagues
   • notes/ - Manager's notes about goals, focus areas, and themes to emphasize
   • These provide essential context for consistent, well-informed reviews

3. Read analysis files:

   • stats.json - Overall impact distribution, repo stats
   • projects.json - Major project groupings (focus on high confidence)
   • timeline.json - Activity trends, busiest periods

4. Focus on flagship and major impact work:

   • These represent the most significant contributions
   • Cross-reference with ticket summaries for business context
   • Group related work into narrative themes

5. Structure for performance review:

   • Accomplishments: What was delivered, with quantifiable impact
   • Impact: How it helped the team, product, or business
   • Growth: Skills developed, challenges overcome
   • Collaboration: Cross-team work, mentorship, knowledge sharing (reference peer reviews)
   • Goals: How work aligned with or exceeded goals (reference notes)

Output Location

Save generated documents to:

<manager-root>/reports/<report-id>/outputs/review-packet-YYYY-MM-DD.md

Use the exact report ID (e.g., alice-smith) in the path.

Output Format

Structure depends on company format (from past reviews). If no past reviews exist, use this structure:

## Performance Review: [Report Name] - [Review Period]

### Summary
[2-3 sentence overview of key accomplishments and impact]

### Key Accomplishments

#### [Project/Theme 1]
**What they did**: [Description of work]
**Impact**: [Measurable outcomes, business value]
**Evidence**: [PR/ticket citations]

#### [Project/Theme 2]
**What they did**: [Description of work]
**Impact**: [Measurable outcomes, business value]
**Evidence**: [PR/ticket citations]

### Technical Growth
- [Skills developed or deepened]
- [New technologies or practices adopted]
- [Technical challenges overcome]

### Collaboration & Leadership
- [Cross-team initiatives]
- [Mentorship or knowledge sharing]
- [Process improvements]
- [Peer feedback themes]

### Alignment with Goals
[How work aligned with or exceeded stated goals from manager notes]

### Areas for Growth
[Development opportunities, stretch areas for next period]

### Looking Ahead
[Future focus areas, upcoming challenges]

Important Constraints

Per roadmap requirements:

• ✅ Evidence-based summaries only
• ❌ No rankings
• ❌ No scoring
• ❌ No comparisons with other team members

Focus on the individual's contributions, growth, and impact with specific evidence.

Tips

• Match the tone and format of previous performance reviews if available
• Use specific numbers and metrics when possible
• Connect technical work to business outcomes
• Highlight work that demonstrates growth from previous feedback
• Be specific about THIS PERSON's contribution vs team work
• Include both planned work and unplanned wins (incidents handled, etc.)
• Reference peer reviews for collaboration effectiveness
• Use manager notes to emphasize goal alignment
• Reference the timeline for seasonal patterns (launches, migrations, etc.)