# Sbi Writer

> Use when giving feedback to a colleague and the wording feels judgmental, vague, or accusatory. Triggers on: "피드백 어떻게 말해?", "feedback 써줘", "SBI", "동료한테 어떻게 말해야 해?", "칭찬 어떻게 해?", "건설적 피드백", "peer review 써야 해", "이 말이 너무 공격적인 것 같아".

- Skill: `newkayak12/sbi-writer` (Agent Skill)
- Install (CLI): `npx skillmds@latest add newkayak12/sbi-writer`
- Raw SKILL.md: https://api.skillmd.com/api/skills/newkayak12/sbi-writer/raw
- Safety review: pending
- Works with: Claude Code, Claude.ai, OpenAI Codex
- Category: Coding & Dev Tools
- Author: newkayak12 (https://skillmd.com/u/newkayak12)
- Updated: 2026-09-21
- Page: https://skillmd.com/skills/newkayak12/sbi-writer

---


# SBI Feedback Writer

## Why SBI Matters

Most feedback fails before it lands. The receiver gets defensive, the message is forgotten, or nothing changes. The root cause is almost always the same: the feedback mixed observation with judgment, or was too vague to act on.

SBI works because it separates three things that the brain processes differently:
- **Situation** — shared, verifiable context that both parties agree on
- **Behavior** — observable action, not character or intent
- **Impact** — the actual consequence, stated from the giver's perspective

When these three are separate and specific, the receiver can engage with the content instead of defending their identity.

---

## The SBI Structure

### S — Situation (언제/어디서)
Anchor the feedback in a specific, recent moment. This is not a summary of a pattern — it is a single instance.

- "지난 화요일 팀 전체가 참석한 스프린트 리뷰에서"
- "어제 고객과의 미팅 중에"
- "지난주 코드 리뷰 PR #142에서"

Why specificity matters: vague situations ("항상", "가끔") make the receiver mentally search for which incident you mean — and they will often land on a different one than you intended.

### B — Behavior (구체적 행동)
Describe what the person did or said, not what you think it means.

- Weak: "발표를 대충 준비했다" (judgment about effort)
- Strong: "발표 자료에 작성된 숫자가 실제 데이터와 달랐고, 질문이 나왔을 때 바로 답하지 못했다" (observable action)

Behavioral language passes the "camera test": if a camera had been in the room, it would have captured exactly what you described.

### I — Impact (영향/결과)
State the actual consequence — on the team, the project, the customer, or on you personally.

- "그 결과 고객이 데이터 신뢰성에 의문을 표했고, 계약 논의가 다음 미팅으로 미뤄졌습니다"
- "팀원들이 어떤 방향으로 작업해야 할지 불확실해져서 하루 동안 작업이 블로킹됐습니다"
- "저는 이 결정이 내 역할을 벗어난 것처럼 느껴져서 어떻게 대응해야 할지 혼란스러웠습니다"

Impact stated from "I/we" perspective is received as information; impact stated as "you caused" is received as accusation.

---

## Workflow

### Step 1 — Gather the raw input
Ask the user:
1. Who is this feedback for and what is your relationship? (peer, report, manager)
2. What happened? Describe it as roughly as you want — we will refine it.
3. Is this positive feedback, constructive feedback, or both?

If the user has already provided enough context, skip directly to drafting.

### Step 2 — Identify what is observation vs. judgment
Review the raw input and separate:
- Observable facts (keep these — they become S and B)
- Interpretations / character labels (flag these — they need to be rephrased or dropped)
- Emotions or impacts (keep these — they become I)

### Step 3 — Draft the SBI statement
Produce a complete SBI statement in Korean. Use natural language — not a fill-in-the-blank template.

### Step 4 — Offer a request or question (optional but recommended)
After the Impact, a good feedback statement often ends with a concrete request or a curiosity question:
- "앞으로 발표 자료에 데이터 출처를 함께 표기해 줄 수 있을까요?"
- "혹시 그때 상황에서 어떤 어려움이 있었는지 이야기해 줄 수 있어요?"

The request or question shifts the conversation from verdict to dialogue.

---

## Positive Feedback (칭찬)

SBI is equally important for praise. Vague praise ("수고했어요", "잘했어요") does not help the receiver understand what to repeat.

SBI praise example:
> "지난주 금요일 사고 대응 미팅에서(S), 네가 먼저 영향 범위를 정리해서 공유해 줬잖아(B). 덕분에 회의가 방향을 잡는 데 10분도 안 걸렸고, 팀이 빠르게 분업할 수 있었어(I). 그런 오너십이 팀에 정말 도움이 돼."

---

## Delivery Tips (전달 방법)

**Timing matters.** Feedback is most effective within 24–48 hours of the event. After a week, memories diverge and the receiver struggles to reconstruct the Situation.

**One-on-one first.** Constructive feedback given in public puts the receiver in a defensive posture. Even if the event was public, address it privately.

**Do not stack.** One SBI per conversation for constructive feedback. Multiple criticisms in a single session overwhelm and the receiver loses track of which one matters most.

**Separate the message from the judgment about the person.** "이 행동이 이런 영향을 줬다"와 "너는 이런 사람이다"는 완전히 다른 말이다. SBI 형식이 이 분리를 자연스럽게 만들어 준다.

---

## Common SBI Mistakes

| Mistake | Example | Fix |
|---------|---------|-----|
| Judgment disguised as behavior | "무책임하게 행동했다" | "마감 전날 아무 공지 없이 작업을 제출하지 않았다" |
| Vague situation | "항상 회의에서" | "지난 화요일 스프린트 플래닝에서" |
| Missing impact | "그건 별로였어" | "팀이 다음 스텝을 결정하지 못하고 하루를 낭비했다" |
| Global character claim | "넌 리더십이 없어" | Name a specific behavior in a specific moment |
| Piling on multiple behaviors | Three behaviors in one statement | One behavior per SBI |