Style Google

Google 汇报风格 (Google Reporting Style)

继承 manage-up-core 五大原则。本技能将报告适配 Google 的 OKR 体系和 GRAD 绩效框架——强调 outcome-based KRs、stretch goals 和 impact 叙事。

触发场景

• 用户提到"Google 风格"、"Google style"、"谷歌"
• 用户提到"Google OKR"、"GRAD"、"peer feedback"
• 用户要求按 Google 格式写 OKR、self-review 或 impact narrative
• 用户背景是 Google 或类似 OKR 驱动的外企

必填输入 (Required Inputs)

生成报告前，向用户收集以下信息：

To write a Google-style report, please provide:

1. **Your OKRs**: What are your quarterly Objectives and Key Results?
   e.g., O: Improve search relevance → KR1: Increase click-through rate from 32% to 38%

2. **Scope and impact**: What did you ship? What was the measurable impact?
   e.g., Launched new ranking model, CTR improved from 32% to 36.5% across all markets

3. **Collaboration and stakeholders**: Who did you work with? Cross-functional impact?
   e.g., Partnered with ML infra team and 3 product teams across Search and Ads

4. **Challenges and learnings**: What didn't go well? What did you learn?
   e.g., Initial model had latency regression, iterated 3 times before production-ready

5. **Next quarter priorities**: What's the plan?
   e.g., Scale model to 5 more surfaces, target CTR 38%

Skip anything you don't have — I won't fabricate data.

报告模板

Google Quarterly OKR Template

# [Team/Individual] OKRs — Q[N] YYYY

## Objective 1: [Outcome-oriented objective]

| Key Result | Target | Actual | Score (0-1.0) |
|------------|--------|--------|---------------|
| KR1: [Measurable outcome] | [target] | [actual] | [0.X] |
| KR2: [Measurable outcome] | [target] | [actual] | [0.X] |
| KR3: [Measurable outcome] | [target] | [actual] | [0.X] |

**Summary**: [1-2 sentences on what drove the results and key learnings]

## Objective 2: [Outcome-oriented objective]

| Key Result | Target | Actual | Score (0-1.0) |
|------------|--------|--------|---------------|
| KR1: [Measurable outcome] | [target] | [actual] | [0.X] |
| KR2: [Measurable outcome] | [target] | [actual] | [0.X] |

**Summary**: [1-2 sentences]

## Overall Reflection

- **What worked**: [replicable patterns]
- **What to improve**: [specific adjustments for next quarter]
- **Stretch assessment**: [Were goals ambitious enough? Too safe?]

Google Self-Review / Impact Narrative Template

# Self-Review — [Name] — [Review Period]

## Impact Summary

[2-3 sentences: highest-impact work, scope, and measurable outcome]

## Key Accomplishments

### [Accomplishment 1: Project/Initiative Name]
- **Scope**: [What it covered, who was involved]
- **What I did**: [Your specific contribution — owned, led, designed, built]
- **Impact**: [Measurable outcome — metrics, users, revenue, reliability]
- **Collaboration**: [Cross-functional partners, stakeholders influenced]

### [Accomplishment 2: Project/Initiative Name]
- **Scope**: [Coverage]
- **What I did**: [Contribution]
- **Impact**: [Outcome]

### [Accomplishment 3]
- **Scope / What I did / Impact**: [...]

## Challenges and Growth

- **[Challenge 1]**: [What happened, what I learned, how I adjusted]
- **[Challenge 2]**: [What happened, what I learned]

## Looking Ahead

- **Next quarter focus**: [Top 2-3 priorities]
- **Growth areas**: [Skills or scope I want to develop]
- **Support needed**: [Mentorship, resources, opportunities]

反空话规则 (Anti-Fluff Rules)

Google 风格特别禁止以下表达：

Google 风格核心要求

1. Outcome KRs, not activity KRs: "Ship feature X" is weak; "Increase metric from A to B via feature X" is strong
2. 0.0-1.0 scoring: 0.7 is typically a good score for stretch goals; consistently hitting 1.0 suggests sandbagging
3. Impact over effort: Google values what changed, not how hard you worked
4. Scope and ambition: Show that your goals were ambitious and your scope was appropriate for your level
5. Cross-functional leverage: Highlight how you amplified impact beyond your immediate team
6. Learnings from misses: Low KR scores are fine if you explain what you learned and how you'll adjust

质量检查

生成后自查：

• Are all KRs outcome-based (not activity-based)?
• Does each KR have a target value, actual value, and 0-1.0 score?
• Is the impact summary concrete and measurable?
• Are accomplishments described with scope, contribution, and impact?
• Are challenges framed as learnings (not excuses)?
• Is there evidence of cross-functional collaboration?
• Are stretch goals appropriately ambitious (not sandbagged)?
• Is the narrative free of vague filler language?