m2ai-portfolio Promotion Packet Auditor
A hostile-reviewer pass on a promotion packet or performance self-review. Its job is to find the claims a skeptical promotion committee will challenge — and surface them before the user submits. It does not rewrite; it produces a ranked issue list.
Trigger
Use when the user says "audit my promo packet", "promotion review", "signal check", "stress test my self-review", "what will a reviewer push back on", "does this show real judgment", or submits a self-review or brag document for pressure-testing.
Related: pretty-but-wrong audits factual accuracy of AI-generated content. This skill audits judgment signal quality in career documents — a different failure mode.
Input
Accept any of:
- A pasted promotion packet or self-review
- A brag document or "list of accomplishments"
- A performance review self-assessment
- A FAANG-style promotion write-up
If the input is a link or file path, ask the user to paste the content directly.
The Three Failure Modes
This skill looks for three distinct failure modes, ranked by severity:
CRITICAL — Claims with no decision context
Statements that describe an output ("I led the migration", "I shipped the feature", "I drove 40% growth") with no evidence that the person understood the work. A skeptical reviewer asks: "What did you decide, and why?" If the packet cannot answer that, the claim is decoration.
Pattern: Impact claim + no alternative considered + no risk acknowledged = AI-polish, not judgment signal.
MAJOR — Impact numbers without mechanism
Quantified results ("reduced latency by 200ms", "saved $2M", "increased retention by 15%") with no explanation of what change caused the result. Numbers are easy to generate; the mechanism is the signal.
Pattern: Metric present + no causal explanation + no counter-evidence addressed = unverifiable claim.
MINOR — Language that signals polish, not authorship
Hedged language, passive constructions, and generic verbs that suggest an AI draft was accepted without personalizing: "collaborated cross-functionally", "leveraged synergies", "ensured alignment", "drove outcomes." These are not wrong, but they are low-signal and will be discounted.
Pattern: Compound noun phrases + passive voice + no named stakeholder or specific constraint = commodity language.
Audit Procedure
For each paragraph or bullet in the input, classify the claim(s) and tag any issues. After scanning the full document:
- Produce a ranked issue list: CRITICAL issues first, then MAJOR, then MINOR.
- For each issue, include:
- Location: quote the exact phrase that triggered the flag
- Failure mode: CRITICAL / MAJOR / MINOR
- Why it will be challenged: one sentence from the skeptical reviewer's perspective
- What would fix it: one sentence describing what evidence or detail would resolve it (do NOT rewrite — just describe what's needed)
Output Format
# Promotion Packet Audit
## Verdict
[PASS / CONDITIONAL / FAIL]
- PASS: ≤2 MAJOR issues, 0 CRITICAL issues
- CONDITIONAL: 1–3 MAJOR issues or 1 CRITICAL issue
- FAIL: 2+ CRITICAL issues or a majority of claims are unverifiable
## Issue List
### CRITICAL
**[C1]** "[exact quoted phrase]"
- **Why it will be challenged:** [one sentence]
- **What would fix it:** [one sentence — describe the evidence needed, do not rewrite]
[repeat for each CRITICAL issue]
### MAJOR
**[M1]** "[exact quoted phrase]"
- **Why it will be challenged:** [one sentence]
- **What would fix it:** [one sentence]
[repeat for each MAJOR issue]
### MINOR
**[mn1]** "[exact quoted phrase]"
- **Why it will be challenged:** [one sentence]
- **What would fix it:** [one sentence]
[repeat for each MINOR issue]
## Signal Summary
[2–3 sentences: what the strongest judgment signal in the packet is, and what the biggest gap is between what the user clearly did and what the packet actually demonstrates]
Verification
- Every issue includes an exact quoted phrase — no paraphrasing
- The failure mode is correctly assigned (not every vague sentence is CRITICAL)
- The "what would fix it" line describes evidence, never rewrites the user's text
- The Signal Summary names at least one genuine strength, not only weaknesses
- No internal agent names or platform-specific paths appear in the output
Source
Derived from Nate's Newsletter 2026-05-31, "Executive Briefing: Your career evidence is thinner than you think + 3 prompts that rebuild it." Nate's thesis: AI destroyed the artifacts that used to signal judgment, because everyone can now produce polished output regardless of whether they understood the work. This skill operationalizes the adversarial side: scoring signal vs. polish so the user can close the gap before a real reviewer does.