# Wins Curate > Use to turn the wins log into an audience-specific artifact — promo packet, behavioral interview stories (STAR), perf-review self-eval, salary negotiation case, or a personal year-in-review. Trigger phrases include "build my promo packet", "I have a behavioral interview Tuesday", "draft my self-eval for the perf review", "make a case for a raise", "year in review for me". Reads `~/bettersense-work-reflections/wins.md`, picks and remixes entries for the chosen audience, and produces a usable artifact. Never invents wins — only curates from what's logged. Composes with `stakeholder-synthesize` and `self-reflect` for perf-review prep. - Skill: `shwetank/wins-curate` (Agent Skill) - Install (CLI): `npx skillmds@latest add shwetank/wins-curate` - Raw SKILL.md: https://api.skillmd.com/api/skills/shwetank/wins-curate/raw - Safety review: pending - Works with: Claude Code, Claude.ai, OpenAI Codex - Category: Product & Planning - Author: shwetank (https://skillmd.com/u/shwetank) - Updated: 2026-09-17 - Page: https://skillmd.com/skills/shwetank/wins-curate --- # Wins Curate Take the accumulated wins log and produce an audience-specific artifact. Five modes; pick one before producing anything. ## Inputs to settle first Refuse to curate before these are clear. Audience determines structure, tone, depth, and which wins matter. 1. **Mode.** One of: - `promo-packet` — internal promotion case for a panel - `interview-stories` — STAR-shaped answers for behavioral interviews - `perf-review` — self-eval for the formal review cycle - `salary-case` — case for a raise, equity refresh, or counteroffer - `year-in-review` — personal retrospective; less external-facing 2. **Time window.** Default: last 12 months. The user can override. 3. **Specifics for the mode** (audience-specific): - Promo: target level, the company's published rubric if available. - Interview: target company / role, known behavioral question themes. - Perf: review cycle template (which sections, what rating scale). - Salary: comp band you're targeting, the case you'll make. - Year-in-review: any specific lens or theme. If the user says "all of them," push back: each artifact has a different shape and different selection criteria. Build them one at a time. ## Loading 1. Read `~/bettersense-work-reflections/wins.md` (configurable via `$BETTERSENSE_WORK_REFLECTIONS_HOME`). 2. Filter entries to the time window. 3. Read the structured fields per entry — type, scope, collaborators, credit framing, impact, evidence. 4. For perf-review mode, also read `~/bettersense-work-reflections/self/reflections.md` (if it exists) and any registered stakeholders' files (via `stakeholders.json`) — composition. ## Mode: `promo-packet` The shape varies by company but most internal promo packets need: - **Scope demonstration** — the candidate operates at the target level's scope. - **Impact** — the candidate has shipped business-relevant outcomes. - **Judgment** — the candidate makes calls others would have gotten wrong. - **Leadership / influence** — the candidate moves people, not just code/specs. - **Growth trajectory** — the candidate has stretched recently. Curate by mapping wins to dimensions: ``` # Promo case: [name] → [target level] Period: [time window] ## Scope demonstration - [headline win] — [1-line summary] (cited: 2026-03-12 entry) - ... ## Impact - [headline win] — [quantified result] (cited: 2026-04-22 entry) - ... ## Judgment - [headline win] — [the call, the reasoning, the result] (cited: ...) - ... ## Leadership / influence - ... ## Growth - ... ## Gaps to address before submission - [Dimension X] is thin in the log. Strongest available is [Y], but a panel may want more. - [Specific evidence the panel will likely want that the log doesn't have.] ``` Pull primarily from `delivery`, `judgment`, `leadership` types. Use `mentorship` and `range` for the leadership and growth dimensions. Skip `learning` for senior promo cases — panels want demonstrated capability, not capability acquisition. **Calibration is non-negotiable.** Show solo-vs-shared credit in the packet — don't claim solo on team work. Reviewers know the team. Inflation costs the case more than a thinner-looking-but-honest packet. ## Mode: `interview-stories` Behavioral interview answers want **stories with conflict and resolution**, not summaries. Pick 4–6 wins that have real texture. Prefer types: `recovery`, `judgment`, `range`, `leadership`. Skip pure `delivery` unless the delivery had genuine conflict embedded. For each picked win, produce: ``` ## Story: [headline] **Best fit for behavioral prompts about:** disagreement, ambiguity, hard call, mentoring, [etc.] ### STAR draft (90-second target) **Situation (15s):** [the context — make the stakes clear without burying the listener in detail] **Task (10s):** [what specifically you were on the hook for — distinguish from team task] **Action (45s):** [what *you* did — first-person verbs. The interviewer wants to know about you, not the team. Surface the hard part.] **Result (20s):** [quantified where possible; if not, the qualitative outcome with audience] ### Likely follow-ups - "What would you do differently?" - "How did [collaborator] react?" - "What was the most uncomfortable part?" - [audience-specific follow-ups] ### Anti-pattern check - ☐ Doesn't end with "and everyone lived happily ever after" — has a real result with caveats - ☐ The "I" is real, not collective - ☐ The conflict is real — not "I solved it by working hard" ``` Then a separate **bench depth** note: a quick scan of which themes are well-covered vs. thin in the user's log, so the user knows where to expect to fall back to weaker stories under pressure. ## Mode: `perf-review` Reviewers want **breadth across types** plus **growth narrative**. Different from a promo packet — perf reviews aren't trying to argue level-up, they're trying to give a calibrated read. Structure: ``` # Self-evaluation: [period] ## Core deliverables [Quantified, with collaborators named honestly. Pull from `delivery`.] ## Judgment & decision-making [Hard calls, with reasoning. Pull from `judgment`. ADR cross-references where they exist.] ## Leadership & influence [Pull from `leadership`, `mentorship`, `culture`.] ## Range / cross-functional [Pull from `range`. Especially valuable in perf — shows breadth.] ## Growth this period [Pull from `learning`, plus growth language from `self-reflect` if available. Frame as: "I've been working on X" with a concrete example of progress.] ## What I'm working on next period [Pull from any "open" / "to do" notes in `self-reflect` or stakeholder files.] ## Calibration notes [Honest acknowledgement of where the user underperformed or where credit was shared. This builds reviewer trust.] ``` **Composition with other skills:** - `self-reflect` file → growth narrative and "working on next" sections. - `stakeholder-synthesize` → relationship signals reviewers ask about ("how have you worked with X?"). - `decision-log` → judgment evidence with rationale. When reviewers ask about a relationship, the user's stakeholder file is where the real data lives. Surface a 3-sentence read on each major relationship. ## Mode: `salary-case` Different framing entirely: business value over personal scope. Reviewers (manager, comp committee, hiring loop) want to see **the value the user creates is misaligned with the comp the user gets**. Structure: ``` # Comp case ## Business value created (last [period]) - Revenue: [if quantifiable] (sources: [wins entries]) - Retention/expansion: [if quantifiable] - Cost saved or risk reduced: [if quantifiable] - Strategic impact (qualitative but anchored): [...] ## Scope vs. peers [Honest framing of where the user's scope is — at level, above level, materially above level. Cite specific wins demonstrating scope.] ## Market context [Comp-band research the user has done. The skill doesn't fabricate market data.] ## The ask [Specific number range, with reasoning.] ## What I'm willing to commit to [Optional: results the user is willing to be on the hook for in exchange.] ``` **Critical: don't inflate.** A salary case that overclaims is a salary case the comp committee dismisses. Every dollar figure cited should map to a logged win with evidence. If the log doesn't have the numbers, name the gap and say what would need to be true to claim them. ## Mode: `year-in-review` Personal retrospective — less external-facing, more "what did I actually do this year and what does it tell me?" Structure: ``` # Year in review: [year] ## By the numbers - N wins logged - Type distribution: [delivery: X, judgment: Y, ...] - Top 3 by impact ## What I shipped [Brief list. The user already knows; this is for the file.] ## What I'm proudest of [2-3 wins, with the why. The hardest, not the loudest.] ## Patterns - [Did one type dominate? Was there a quarter that felt off?] - [Did the user log mostly delivery and miss leadership? That's signal.] - [Trajectory: was Q4 stronger than Q1?] ## What's missing from the log [Probably-real wins that didn't make it into the file because the user forgot. Useful for next year's discipline.] ## What I want next year [Pull from `self-reflect` if available.] ``` This mode is meant to be lower-pressure and more reflective than the others. Honest patterns matter more than impressive headlines. ## Operating principles (apply to all modes) - **Never invent wins.** Curate from the log only. If the requested artifact needs a win the log doesn't have, name the gap explicitly. Tell the user what would need to be true to claim X — don't paper over it. - **Honor the user's voice.** No marketing buzzwords. The artifact should sound like the user, not like LinkedIn. *"Spearheaded a strategic initiative"* is a flag — replace with what they actually did. - **Calibrate solo vs. shared credit.** This is the difference between an artifact that holds up under scrutiny and one that gets the user dismissed. Inflation always costs more than calibration. - **Cite log entries.** Every claim in the artifact maps to a specific entry in `wins.md`. Same discipline as `stakeholder-synthesize` — the cite is what makes the artifact defensible. - **Surface gaps as prep targets.** A thin promo case in the `judgment` dimension is information the user can act on (log more judgment wins; or rethink the timing). Name the gap. - **Match the audience's risk tolerance.** A perf review tolerates honest growth language. A promo panel reads growth language as "not ready." Tune accordingly. - **Compose, don't duplicate.** When `self-reflect` and `stakeholder-synthesize` have material that matters, pull it in by reference rather than restating. The artifact is a curation, not a rewrite. ## Anti-patterns to flag - **One artifact for all audiences.** Tempting and wrong. Each mode produces a different shape because the audiences need different things. Refuse to merge. - **Inflation by adjective.** "Massively transformed" / "industry-leading" / "transformational." Replace with the number that justifies the adjective, or drop the adjective. - **Hidden plurals.** "I led teams across the org" when the user worked with two teams. Force singular when singular is honest. - **Skipping calibration.** A perf review or promo packet without a single shared-credit acknowledgement reads as collusive or oblivious. Almost no work is solo. - **Recency-bias only.** Promo cases that pull only from the last quarter look thin. Pull across the time window. - **Listing wins in chronological order.** That's the log itself; the artifact should rank by the audience's selection criteria. - **Ending with "and the rest is up to you."** Always end with concrete next moves: what to log before submission, what to rehearse, where the gaps are.