Best for
- "Write my self-assessment for this review cycle"
- "Draft a peer review for [colleague]"
- "Help me write upward feedback for my manager"
github/awesome-copilot/skills/performance-review-writer/SKILL.md
Draft performance reviews, self-assessments, peer reviews, and upward feedback in your own voice. Analyzes your contributions, emails, and meeting history via WorkIQ, then produces honest, impact-focused drafts using the STAR format. USE FOR: write my performance review, draft self-assessment, peer review, 360 feedback, annual review, mid-year review, upward feedback, write review for colleague, performance appraisal.
Decision brief
Draft self-assessments, peer reviews, and upward feedback that sound like you — not corporate boilerplate. Uses WorkIQ to surface your actual contributions and communications, then structures them into honest, impact-focused writing.
Compatibility matrix
| Platform | Status | Evidence | What to check |
|---|---|---|---|
| Codex | Not declared | No explicit evidence | Portability before use |
| Claude Code | Not declared | No explicit evidence | Portability before use |
| Cursor | Not declared | No explicit evidence | Portability before use |
| Gemini CLI | Not declared | No explicit evidence | Portability before use |
Installation
The source command is displayed only when detected. A safe inspection prompt is always available so your agent can explain every action before execution.
npx skills add https://github.com/github/awesome-copilot --skill "skills/performance-review-writer"Inspect the Agent Skill "performance-review-writer" from https://github.com/github/awesome-copilot/blob/9933dcad5be5caeb288cebcd370eeeb2fc2f1685/skills/performance-review-writer/SKILL.md at commit 9933dcad5be5caeb288cebcd370eeeb2fc2f1685. List every install step, command, network request, credential, file read/write, external action, and rollback step. Explain whether it fits my task. Do not install or execute anything until I approve.
Workflow
This skill handles three distinct types:
Ask the user (max 3 clarifying questions if not already provided):
Ask the user (max 3 clarifying questions if not already provided):
Use WorkIQ to gather evidence of real contributions for the review period:
Apply the right structure for the review type (see schemas below). Follow these universal rules:
Permission review
No configured static risk pattern was detected
This is not proof of safety. Runtime behavior, indirect dependencies, and hidden external systems are outside the static scan.
Evidence record
| Signal | Value | Evidence type | Meaning |
|---|---|---|---|
| Quality score | 88/100 | Computed | Documentation, specificity, maintenance, and trust rules |
| Repository stars | 37,126 | Source | Repository attention, not individual Skill quality |
| Compatibility | 0 platforms | Source | Declared in the catalog source record |
| Usage guide | automated source guide | Editorial | Generated or reviewed according to the visible evidence level |
Pinned source
Draft self-assessments, peer reviews, and upward feedback that sound like you — not corporate boilerplate. Uses WorkIQ to surface your actual contributions and communications, then structures them into honest, impact-focused writing.
This skill handles three distinct types:
| Type | Who it's about | Typical tone |
|---|---|---|
| Self-assessment | Yourself | Confident, evidence-backed, growth-oriented |
| Peer review | A colleague | Specific, constructive, balanced |
| Upward feedback | Your manager | Diplomatic, honest, forward-looking |
Ask the user (max 3 clarifying questions if not already provided):
If format constraints or focus areas are relevant, ask about those during drafting rather than upfront.
If the user provides all of these upfront, proceed directly to Step 2.
Use WorkIQ to gather evidence of real contributions for the review period:
For self-assessments:
For peer reviews:
For upward feedback:
If WorkIQ is unavailable or returns limited data, ask the user to share 3–5 bullet points of things they remember, then proceed with those.
Apply the right structure for the review type (see schemas below). Follow these universal rules:
Use the STAR format for achievement statements:
Tone rules:
[NEEDS DETAIL] where more specifics would strengthen the reviewoutputs/<year>/<month>/ with a descriptive filename (e.g., 2025-review-self-assessment.md or 2025-peer-review-alex-chen.md)## [Review Period] Self-Assessment — [Your Name]
### Summary
1–2 sentence overview of your year and primary areas of impact.
### Key Achievements
For each major contribution (aim for 3–5):
**[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 — [Colleague Name], [Their Role]
## Submitted by: [Your Name] | Period: [Review Period]
### Overall Impression
1–2 sentences on working with this person.
### Strengths (with examples)
For each strength (aim for 2–3):
**[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 (or not) 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.)
## 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.
Use examples where possible.
### What could be better
1–2 honest, diplomatically framed observations. Focus on behaviours and their effect, not personality.
Use: "When [X happens], I find it harder to [Y]. It would help if..."
### Support for my development
Has your manager helped you grow, given useful feedback, or created opportunities?
Be specific.
### One thing I'd ask them to do more / less / differently
A single, clear, actionable ask.
| Do | Don't |
|---|---|
| Name specific projects, dates, outcomes | Write vague generalisations ("always delivers quality work") |
| Use numbers when available ("reduced review time by 30%") | Exaggerate or invent results |
| Acknowledge real challenges and what you learned | Omit struggles entirely — reviewers notice the gaps |
| Write in first person for self-assessments | Write passively ("it was achieved") |
| Be concise — most fields need 2–4 sentences | Over-write — longer ≠ better |
Flag [NEEDS DETAIL] where evidence is weak | Leave thin sections without marking them |
outputs/<year>/<month>/ folder conventionAlternatives
event4u-app/agent-config
Use when the user says "review the design", "check the UI", or wants a comprehensive UI/UX review. Uses a 7-phase methodology covering interaction, responsiveness, accessibility, and more.
K-Dense-AI/scientific-agent-skills
Distributed computing for larger-than-RAM pandas/NumPy workflows. Use when you need to scale existing pandas/NumPy code beyond memory or across clusters. Best for parallel file processing, distributed ML, integration with existing pandas code. For out-of-core analytics on single machine use vaex; for in-memory speed use polars.
K-Dense-AI/scientific-agent-skills
Medicinal chemistry filters for compound triage. Apply drug-likeness rules (Lipinski, Veber, CNS), structural alert catalogs (PAINS, NIBR, ChEMBL), complexity metrics, and the medchem query language for library filtering.
K-Dense-AI/scientific-agent-skills
Use NeuroKit2 to build or audit reproducible research workflows for physiological time-series preprocessing, event/interval analysis, multimodal alignment, variability, and complexity. Trigger when code imports neurokit2 or needs its current APIs, schemas, and method-aware validation—not for diagnosis or device validation.