performance-review-writer

作者: github

草擬績效評估、自我評估、同儕評估及向上反饋,並以您自己的語氣呈現。透過分析您的貢獻、電子郵件及會議記錄…

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

來自 github 的更多技能

console-rendering
github
在 Go 中使用基於結構體標籤的控制台渲染系統的說明
official
acquire-codebase-knowledge
github
當使用者明確要求對現有程式碼庫進行映射、文件化或入門引導時,使用此技能。觸發詞如「映射此程式碼庫」、「文件化…」等提示。
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
透過 AgentRC 指令命令生成量身打造的 AI 代理指令檔案。產生 .github/copilot-instructions.md(預設,建議用於 VS Code 中的 Copilot…
official
acreadiness-policy
github
幫助使用者選取、撰寫或套用 AgentRC 政策。政策可透過停用不相關的檢查、覆寫影響/等級、設定…來自訂整備度評分。
official
add-educational-comments
github
為程式碼檔案添加教育性註解,將其轉化為有效的學習資源。根據三個可設定的知識層級(初學者、中級、進階)調整解釋深度與語氣。若未提供檔案,會自動請求提供,並以編號清單對應以便快速選取。僅透過教育性註解將檔案擴充最多125%(嚴格上限:400行新註解;超過1,000行的檔案上限為300行)。保留檔案編碼、縮排風格、語法正確性及……
official
adobe-illustrator-scripting
github
使用 ExtendScript (JavaScript/JSX) 編寫、除錯及最佳化 Adobe Illustrator 自動化腳本。適用於建立或修改操控…的腳本時。
official
agent-governance
github
宣告式政策、意圖分類與稽核軌跡,用於控制AI代理工具存取與行為。可組合的治理政策定義允許/封鎖的工具、內容過濾器、速率限制與核准要求——以配置而非程式碼形式儲存。語意意圖分類在工具執行前,透過基於模式的訊號偵測危險提示(資料外洩、權限提升、提示注入)。工具層級治理裝飾器在函式層級強制執行政策……
official