# Performance Review Writer > Draft self-assessments, peer reviews, 360 reviews, upward feedback, annual reviews, mid-year reviews, and performance appraisals in the user's voice. Use when asked to write or improve review-cycle feedback using WorkIQ evidence, STAR examples, constructive tone, and markdown drafts saved under outputs///. - Skill: `paulasilvatech/performance-review-writer` (Agent Skill) - Install (CLI): `npx skillmds@latest add paulasilvatech/performance-review-writer` - Raw SKILL.md: https://api.skillmd.com/api/skills/paulasilvatech/performance-review-writer/raw - Safety review: PASS (external: skill-scanner PASS, skillspector PASS) - Works with: Claude Code, Claude.ai, OpenAI Codex - Category: Docs & Writing - Author: paulasilvatech (https://skillmd.com/u/paulasilvatech) - Updated: 2026-09-17 - Page: https://skillmd.com/skills/paulasilvatech/performance-review-writer --- # Performance review writer Draft honest, evidence-backed performance review text by gathering review context, surfacing contributions from WorkIQ or user notes, applying STAR structure, and saving a markdown draft the user can review manually. ## When to invoke - "Write my self-assessment for this review cycle." - "Draft a peer review for a colleague." - "Help me write upward feedback for my manager." - "I have my annual or mid-year review due." - "Write a 360 review or performance appraisal." ## Prerequisites and context - WorkIQ MCP access is recommended for Microsoft 365, Outlook, Teams, meeting, and communication evidence. - If WorkIQ is unavailable or sparse, ask the user for `3–5` bullet points and proceed with those. - Save drafts as markdown under `outputs///`, for example `outputs/2025/12/2025-review-self-assessment.md` or `outputs/2025/12/2025-peer-review-alex-chen.md`. - Never submit a review; only draft text for the user to review and submit manually. ## Procedure 1. Gather at most three initial facts unless already provided: review type, subject, and review period. 2. Use WorkIQ or user-provided bullets to collect evidence for the review period. Summarize and redact evidence; do not reproduce raw excerpts, attendee lists, or sensitive personal details. 3. Draft using the schema for self-assessment, peer review, or upward feedback. 4. Mark thin claims with `[NEEDS DETAIL]` instead of inventing evidence. 5. Iterate on requested edits. 6. Save the final markdown draft to `outputs///` with a descriptive filename. ## Review types and evidence | Type | Subject | Evidence to find | Tone | | --- | --- | --- | --- | | Self-assessment | The user | Delivered results, initiatives led, problems solved, repeated projects, praise, feedback, collaboration breadth. | Confident, evidence-backed, growth-oriented, first person. | | Peer review | A colleague | Interactions between the user and subject, shared projects, help given, friction, observable impact. | Specific, constructive, balanced. | | Upward feedback | The user's manager | Direction, support, feedback patterns, expectation clarity, recognition, availability, development support. | Diplomatic, honest, forward-looking. | Use STAR for achievements: Situation, Task, Action, Result. Name projects, dates, outcomes, and people when appropriate; use numbers such as `reduced review time by 30%` only when supported. ## Style rules | Do | Do not | | --- | --- | | Use specific projects, dates, outcomes, and observable behaviors. | Write vague filler such as "goes above and beyond", "team player", or "hard worker". | | Acknowledge real challenges and what was learned. | Omit struggles entirely or overstate impact. | | Use first person for self-assessments. | Write passively, such as "it was achieved". | | Keep most fields to `2–4` sentences. | Over-write; longer is not better. | | Frame development areas as next-cycle goals. | Attack personality, character, or motives. | | Mark `[NEEDS DETAIL]` when evidence is weak. | Leave thin sections unmarked. | ## Review-cycle vocabulary Use impact-focused language for self, peer, and manager feedback. For peer/upward reviews, describe what you/they did with observable evidence. If the review is a mid-year check-in, name it that way. Filename examples include `2025-review-self-assessment.md` and `2025-peer-review-alex-chen.md`. ## Output template ```markdown ## draft — **Status:** draft | needs detail | blocked **Evidence used:** **Saved to:** `outputs///.md` ### Draft ### Sections needing detail -
: ### Validation - WorkIQ or user notes reviewed: - Sensitive raw excerpts omitted: - Draft saved: ``` ## Examples ### Self-assessment schema ```markdown ## [Review Period] Self-Assessment — [Your Name] ### Summary 1–2 sentence overview of your year and primary areas of impact. ### Key Achievements **[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 ```markdown ## 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) **[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 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 ```markdown ## 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. ### What could be better Use: "When [X happens], I find it harder to [Y]. It would help if..." ### Support for my development Specific development support, feedback, or opportunities. ### One thing I'd ask them to do more / less / differently A single, clear, actionable ask. ``` ## Limits - Do not submit reviews or access systems to submit them. - Decline requests to create dishonestly negative reviews or personal attacks; offer constructive reframing. - Do not include sensitive information from unrelated conversations or threads. ## Quality gate - [ ] Review type, subject, and period are known or explicitly marked missing. - [ ] Evidence comes from WorkIQ summaries or user-provided bullets, not invented details. - [ ] Achievement claims use STAR or equivalent context-action-impact structure. - [ ] Thin areas are marked `[NEEDS DETAIL]`. - [ ] Peer and upward feedback focus on observable behavior, not personality. - [ ] No raw private excerpts, attendee lists, or sensitive unrelated details are included. - [ ] Draft is saved under `outputs///` when file writing is requested or possible.