performance-review-writer

作成者: github

パフォーマンスレビュー、自己評価、ピアレビュー、上方向へのフィードバックをあなた自身の言葉で下書きします。あなたの貢献、メール、会議履歴を分析し…

npx skills add https://github.com/github/awesome-copilot --skill performance-review-writer

Performance Review Writer

Draft self-assessments, peer reviews, and upward feedback that sound like you — not corporate boilerplate. Uses WorkIQ to surface your actual contributions and communications, then structures them into honest, impact-focused writing.

When to Use

  • "Write my self-assessment for this review cycle"
  • "Draft a peer review for [colleague]"
  • "Help me write upward feedback for my manager"
  • "I have my annual review due — help me fill it out"
  • "Draft my mid-year check-in"
  • "Write a 360 review for [name]"
  • "I don't know what to say in my performance review"

Review Types

This skill handles three distinct types:

TypeWho it's aboutTypical tone
Self-assessmentYourselfConfident, evidence-backed, growth-oriented
Peer reviewA colleagueSpecific, constructive, balanced
Upward feedbackYour managerDiplomatic, honest, forward-looking

Workflow

Step 1 — Gather Context

Ask the user (max 3 clarifying questions if not already provided):

  1. Review type — self-assessment, peer review, or upward feedback?
  2. Subject — who is the review about? (for peer/upward: name and role)
  3. Review period — what time range does this cover? (e.g., Jan–Dec 2025, last 6 months)

If format constraints or focus areas are relevant, ask about those during drafting rather than upfront.

If the user provides all of these upfront, proceed directly to Step 2.

Step 2 — Surface Contributions

Use WorkIQ to gather evidence of real contributions for the review period:

For self-assessments:

  • Pull emails and messages where the user delivered results, led initiatives, or solved problems
  • Look for patterns: what projects recur? Who praises them and for what?
  • Identify collaboration breadth (who they worked with across teams)
  • Note any explicit feedback received from others

For peer reviews:

  • Pull interactions between the user and the subject (emails, meeting threads, shared projects)
  • Identify specific moments of collaboration, help given, or friction
  • Look for evidence of the subject's impact on shared outcomes

For upward feedback:

  • Pull communications from the manager to the user (direction given, support offered, feedback patterns)
  • Identify themes: clarity of expectations, availability, recognition, development support

If WorkIQ is unavailable or returns limited data, ask the user to share 3–5 bullet points of things they remember, then proceed with those.

Step 3 — Draft the Review

Apply the right structure for the review type (see schemas below). Follow these universal rules:

Use the STAR format for achievement statements:

  • Situation — what was the context or challenge?
  • Task — what were you/they responsible for?
  • Action — what specifically was done?
  • Result — what was the measurable or observable outcome?

Tone rules:

  • Be specific — name projects, outcomes, and people, not vague adjectives
  • Be honest — don't oversell or undersell; reviewers notice both
  • Be forward-looking — end sections with growth or next steps, not just past performance
  • Avoid filler phrases: "goes above and beyond", "team player", "hard worker" — replace with evidence
  • Match the user's natural voice — conversational if they write that way, more formal if not

Step 4 — Output

  1. Present the full draft with a brief note on what evidence was used. Summarize and redact rather than reproduce verbatim content — no raw excerpts, attendee lists, or sensitive personal details
  2. Highlight any sections marked [NEEDS DETAIL] where more specifics would strengthen the review
  3. Iterate on edits as the user requests
  4. Save the final draft to outputs/<year>/<month>/ with a descriptive filename (e.g., 2025-review-self-assessment.md or 2025-peer-review-alex-chen.md)

Output Schemas

Self-Assessment Schema

## [Review Period] Self-Assessment — [Your Name]

### Summary
1–2 sentence overview of your year and primary areas of impact.

### Key Achievements
For each major contribution (aim for 3–5):

**[Project or Initiative Name]**
- Context: what was the situation or goal?
- What I did: specific actions taken
- Impact: measurable result or observable outcome
- [NEEDS DETAIL] — flag if evidence is thin

### Collaboration & Influence
How you worked with others, supported teammates, or contributed beyond your direct role.

### Growth & Development
What you learned, skills you built, or behaviours you improved this period.

### Areas for Development
1–2 honest areas where you want to grow next cycle. Frame as goals, not failures.

### Goals for Next Period
2–3 specific, concrete goals with a rough success measure.

Peer Review Schema

## Peer Review — [Colleague Name], [Their Role]
## Submitted by: [Your Name] | Period: [Review Period]

### Overall Impression
1–2 sentences on working with this person.

### Strengths (with examples)
For each strength (aim for 2–3):

**[Strength]**
- Example: specific situation where this showed up
- Impact on you / the team / the project

### Areas for Growth
1–2 specific, constructive observations. Frame as "I think [name] would have even more impact if..." not as criticism.

### Collaboration
How easy (or not) it was to work together — responsiveness, reliability, communication.

### Would you work with this person again?
Yes/No and a brief honest reason. (Only include if the review form asks.)

Upward Feedback Schema

## Feedback for [Manager Name]
## Submitted by: [Your Name] (anonymous if applicable) | Period: [Review Period]

### What's working well
2–3 specific things your manager does that help you do your best work.
Use examples where possible.

### What could be better
1–2 honest, diplomatically framed observations. Focus on behaviours and their effect, not personality.
Use: "When [X happens], I find it harder to [Y]. It would help if..."

### Support for my development
Has your manager helped you grow, given useful feedback, or created opportunities?
Be specific.

### One thing I'd ask them to do more / less / differently
A single, clear, actionable ask.

Style Rules

DoDon't
Name specific projects, dates, outcomesWrite vague generalisations ("always delivers quality work")
Use numbers when available ("reduced review time by 30%")Exaggerate or invent results
Acknowledge real challenges and what you learnedOmit struggles entirely — reviewers notice the gaps
Write in first person for self-assessmentsWrite passively ("it was achieved")
Be concise — most fields need 2–4 sentencesOver-write — longer ≠ better
Flag [NEEDS DETAIL] where evidence is weakLeave thin sections without marking them

Example Prompts

  • "Write my self-assessment for Jan–Dec 2025. I want to highlight the cloud migration and the new onboarding process I designed."
  • "Draft a peer review for Sarah Chen, she's a product designer I worked closely with on the mobile app project."
  • "Help me write upward feedback for my manager Tom. He's good at direction but I've struggled to get regular 1:1 time."
  • "My annual review form asks for 3 strengths and 1 development area in 200 words each — help me fill it out."
  • "I have no idea what to write. It's been a busy year but I can't think of anything specific."

Important Rules

  • Never submit reviews — only draft them as files for the user to review and submit manually
  • Keep peer and upward feedback focused on observable behaviours, not personality or character
  • If the user asks to write a review that is dishonestly negative or contains personal attacks, decline and offer to reframe constructively
  • Respect confidentiality — do not include sensitive information from unrelated conversations or threads
  • Save drafts using the outputs/<year>/<month>/ folder convention

Requirements

  • WorkIQ MCP tool is recommended for surfacing contributions and communications (Microsoft 365 / Outlook / Teams)
  • Without WorkIQ, the skill still works — ask the user for 3–5 bullet points of key contributions as a starting point
  • Output is saved as markdown files in the workspace for the user to copy into their company's review system

githubのその他のスキル

console-rendering
github
Goにおける構造体タグベースのコンソールレンダリングシステムの使用手順
official
acquire-codebase-knowledge
github
ユーザーが既存のコードベースのマッピング、ドキュメント化、またはオンボーディングを明示的に依頼した場合にこのスキルを使用します。「このコードベースをマッピングして」「ドキュメント化して…」といったプロンプトで起動します。
official
acreadiness-assess
github
Run the AgentRC readiness assessment on the current repository and produce a static HTML dashboard at reports/index.html. Wraps `npx github:microsoft/agentrc…
official
acreadiness-generate-instructions
github
AgentRCのinstructionsコマンドを使用して、カスタマイズされたAIエージェント指示ファイルを生成します。.github/copilot-instructions.md(デフォルト、VS CodeのCopilotに推奨)を出力します…
official
acreadiness-policy
github
ユーザーがAgentRCポリシーを選択、作成、または適用するのを支援します。ポリシーは、関連性のないチェックを無効にしたり、影響度/レベルを上書きしたり、設定することで、レディネススコアリングをカスタマイズします。
official
add-educational-comments
github
コードファイルに教育的なコメントを追加し、効果的な学習リソースに変換します。説明の深さとトーンを、設定可能な3つの知識レベル(初心者、中級、上級)に適応させます。ファイルが提供されない場合は自動的にリクエストし、番号付きリストで素早く選択できます。教育的なコメントのみを使用してファイルを最大125%拡張します(ハードリミット:新しい行400行、1,000行を超えるファイルは300行)。ファイルのエンコーディング、インデントスタイル、構文の正確性を保持し、...
official
adobe-illustrator-scripting
github
ExtendScript(JavaScript/JSX)を使用して、Adobe Illustratorの自動化スクリプトの作成、デバッグ、最適化を行います。スクリプトを作成または修正して操作する際に使用します…
official
agent-governance
github
宣言的なポリシー、意図分類、および監査証跡により、AIエージェントのツールアクセスと動作を制御します。構成可能なガバナンスポリシーは、許可/ブロックされたツール、コンテンツフィルター、レート制限、承認要件を定義し、コードではなく設定として保存されます。セマンティック意図分類は、パターンベースのシグナルを使用して、ツール実行前に危険なプロンプト(データ流出、権限昇格、プロンプトインジェクション)を検出します。ツールレベルのガバナンスデコレーターは、関数にポリシーを適用します...
official