npx skills add ...
npx skills add github/awesome-copilot --skill performance-review-writer
npx skills add github/awesome-copilot --skill performance-review-writer
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.
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)| 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 convention## 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.