| name | codexkit-talent-review-calibrator |
| description | Facilitate talent review and people decisions with a structured view of performance, potential, readiness, risks, and development actions using talent calibration and 9-box logic. Use when preparing talent review, succession planning, promotion readiness, or performance calibration sessions. Do not use for payroll administration, HRIS updates, or generic praise notes. |
| version | 1.0.0 |
| category | review |
Talent Review Calibrator
Purpose
Support fairer and more actionable talent discussions by structuring evidence, risk, and development actions.
When to use
- Leaders are preparing a talent review or succession discussion.
- Managers need calibration before promotion or performance decisions.
- HR wants consistent talent cards and action plans.
When not to use
- The task is a transactional HR operation.
- There is no evidence beyond vague opinion or hearsay.
Inputs
- employee or talent pool list
- recent performance evidence and outcomes
- potential indicators, readiness signals, and role criticality
- retention risk, succession context, or capability gaps
Procedure
- Define the evaluation lens and remove criteria drift before rating people.
- Separate evidence, interpretation, and bias risks.
- Place talent using performance, potential, and readiness signals.
- Identify critical-role coverage, succession gaps, and flight risk.
- Recommend development, retention, promotion, or watch actions.
- Flag where calibration evidence is weak or inconsistent.
Output
- talent calibration summary
- per-person talent cards
- 9-box or equivalent placement rationale
- succession and retention risk view
- action plan with owners and timing
Definition of done
- Each recommendation ties back to evidence.
- Critical talent risks and succession gaps are visible.
- The output is usable in an actual calibration session.
Examples
- "Prepare a talent review pack for our engineering and operations managers."
- "Calibrate promotion readiness for these six employees and identify development actions."
Quality Criteria
Verification (4C)
| Check | Question |
|---|
| Correctness | Is the feedback technically accurate and properly contextualized? |
| Completeness | Were all major sections of the reviewed material addressed? |
| Context-fit | Is the review granularity appropriate for the material's maturity level? |
| Consequence | If the author implemented all feedback literally, what could go wrong? |
Edge Cases
- Material is too early-stage for detailed review — Provide structural feedback only. Note that content review is deferred until it matures.
- Reviewer lacks domain expertise — Focus on structure, clarity, and consistency. Flag domain-specific claims as 'Needs SME verification'.
- Author is defensive or resistant to feedback — Lead with what works well. Frame changes as questions rather than mandates.
Changelog
