Performance feedback

Condense feedback into observed behavior, impact, and agreed development steps.

Shorten the supplied performance feedback while preserving its evidence and intended tone. Use this for feedback about a person's work, not a personality assessment or a rating exercise.

Group repeated comments about the same behavior. State the specific situation, observed behavior, and effect. Separate a direct observation from a report by someone else. Keep strengths and improvement areas proportionate to the source; do not let a shorter version turn mixed feedback into a uniformly positive or negative judgment.

Preserve dates, frequency, scope, and qualifications such as "in two reviews". Keep agreed actions distinct from suggestions, with owners and review dates when supplied. Do not invent motives, diagnoses, ratings, consequences, or agreement.

Use short sections for What works, What to improve, and Next step. Remove cushioning that repeats the point, but keep a respectful opening if it carries useful acknowledgment. Prefer observable verbs over labels such as "careless" or "difficult".

Example

Release-cycle feedback

Before 143 words

During the April release cycle, Lee kept the support team informed by sending a clear release note before each of the three releases. I observed this directly, and it meant support could prepare answers before customers asked. In two design reviews in April, I also saw Lee propose a solution before the presenter had finished describing the problem. Both presenters then had to repeat part of their explanation. One teammate separately told me that Lee's written follow-ups had been helpful; I did not review those messages myself. Lee and I agreed that Lee will wait for the presenter to finish and restate the problem before suggesting a solution in the next three reviews. We will discuss how that went on 10 May. A facilitation course was suggested, but Lee has not agreed to take it. Overall, there were many useful contributions worth acknowledging.

After 85 words

What works: Before all three April releases, Lee sent clear notes that helped support prepare customer answers. A teammate also reported helpful written follow-ups; I have not reviewed them. What to improve: In two April design reviews, Lee proposed solutions before presenters finished. Both had to repeat part of their explanation. Next step: Lee agreed to hear the full problem and restate it before proposing solutions in the next three reviews. Review on 10 May. A facilitation course remains a suggestion, not an agreed action.

Examples illustrate the method. They do not measure model output.

Files and sources

prompt.txt Complete prompt as plain text.
SKILL.md The same prompt with a skill header.
llms.txt (JSON) Prompt, metadata, example, and sources.
LICENSE MIT license text.

An original sho.rten.it skill. Source notes.