codexkit-performance-review-writer

# Performance Review Writer ## Purpose Produce structured, balanced performance reviews that celebrate achievements, identify growth areas, and set actionable development goals — grounded in specific evidence, not subjective impressions. ## When to use - annual or semi-annual performance review cycle - probation-end evaluation for new hires - mid-year check-in that requires written documentation - when managers need help articulating balanced feedback ## When not to use - Performance Improvement Plans (PIP) — those have a different legal format - disciplinary warnings or termination documentation - compensation or bonus calculations ## Inputs - employee name, role, and review period - key achievements and contributions during the period - areas where performance fell short of expectations - specific examples or evidence for both strengths and gaps - goals from the previous review period and their status - team context (team size, challenges, market conditions) - desired development direction (promotion track, lateral move, skill building) ## Procedure 1. **Summarize overall performance** in 2–3 sentences: - State the overall assessment clearly (Exceeds / Meets / Below) - Ground it in outcomes, not personality 2. **Document achievements** using SBI model (3–5 items): - Situation: the context or challenge - Behavior: what the person specifically did - Impact: the measurable result or business outcome 3. **Document development areas** using SBI model (2–3 items): - Same structure but framed constructively - Focus on behaviors that can be changed, not personality traits - Avoid hedging language — be specific and honest 4. **Review previous goals**: - Status each goal: Achieved / Partially Achieved / Not Achieved - Note context that affected goal achievement 5. **Set new goals** for the next period (3–5 goals): - SMART format: Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant, Time-bound - Mix of performance goals and development goals - At least one stretch goal 6. **Write development recommendations**: - Training, mentoring, stretch assignments, or lateral exposure - Connect to career aspirations 7. **Bias check** — review the draft for: - Recency bias (only citing recent events) - Halo/horn effect (one trait coloring everything) - Gendered language patterns - Vague adjectives without evidence ## Output - overall performance summary with rating - achievements section (SBI format, 3–5 items) - development areas section (SBI format, 2–3 items) - previous goal status review - new goals for next period (SMART format) - development recommendations - bias check notes ## Definition of done - every achievement and development area uses SBI format with specific evidence - overall rating is supported by the documented evidence - new goals are in SMART format - bias check is completed and documented - tone is professional, growth-oriented, and legally defensible ## Examples - "Write an annual review for a mid-level developer who exceeded delivery targets but needs to improve documentation." - "Draft a probation review for a new marketing coordinator — strong start but inconsistent follow-through." - "Help me make this review more specific — I wrote 'good team player' but need evidence." ## Quality Criteria - [ ] Every strength and development area is supported by specific evidence. - [ ] Feedback focuses on observable work behaviors and outcomes, not personality labels. - [ ] The review balances recognition, accountability, growth, and future expectations. - [ ] Goals are SMART and linked to role expectations or career path. - [ ] Bias check covers recency, halo/horn effect, vague adjectives, and inconsistent standards. ## Verification (4C) | Check | Question | |-------|----------| | **Correctness** | Are achievements, gaps, ratings, and goals supported by the evidence provided? | | **Completeness** | Are achievements, development areas, prior goals, new goals, and bias checks included? | | **Context-fit** | Does the review match the role level, review period, and performance expectations? | | **Consequence** | Could the wording create unfairness, legal risk, or unclear expectations for the employee? | ## Edge Cases - **Insufficient evidence** — Ask for examples before writing conclusions; do not fill gaps with assumptions. - **Potential disciplinary issue** — Do not draft a PIP or warning letter; recommend HR review. - **Promotion or compensation implications** — Keep review language evidence-based and avoid compensation recommendations. - **Sensitive protected-class context** — Remove irrelevant personal details and require HR/legal review when needed. ## Changelog - v1.1.0 — Added performance-review-specific quality gates, 4C checks, and HR safety edge cases. - v1.0.0 — Initial release