Performance Review Writer (#1628)

* Performance Review Writer

* Changes to address merging issues

* Changes to address merging issues

skills/performance-review-writer/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,216 @@
+---
+name: performance-review-writer
+description: 'Draft performance reviews, self-assessments, peer reviews, and upward feedback in your own voice. Analyzes your contributions, emails, and meeting history via WorkIQ, then produces honest, impact-focused drafts using the STAR format. USE FOR: write my performance review, draft self-assessment, peer review, 360 feedback, annual review, mid-year review, upward feedback, write review for colleague, performance appraisal.'
+---
+
+# 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:
+
+| Type | Who it's about | Typical tone |
+|---|---|---|
+| **Self-assessment** | Yourself | Confident, evidence-backed, growth-oriented |
+| **Peer review** | A colleague | Specific, constructive, balanced |
+| **Upward feedback** | Your manager | Diplomatic, 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
+
+| Do | Don't |
+|---|---|
+| Name specific projects, dates, outcomes | Write 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 learned | Omit struggles entirely — reviewers notice the gaps |
+| Write in first person for self-assessments | Write passively ("it was achieved") |
+| Be concise — most fields need 2–4 sentences | Over-write — longer ≠ better |
+| Flag `[NEEDS DETAIL]` where evidence is weak | Leave 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