codexkit-performance-review-writer

name	codexkit-performance-review-writer
description	Write balanced, evidence-based performance reviews for employees. Covers achievements, development areas, and goal setting using the SBI (Situation-Behavior-Impact) feedback model. Produces reviews that are fair, legally defensible, and growth-oriented. Use during annual or semi-annual review cycles. Do not use for disciplinary actions, PIPs, or compensation calculations.
version	1.0.0
category	review

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