Performance review season, prompt by prompt

Prepare an agenda for my next 1:1 with {{report_role}}. The meeting is {{meeting_length}}, and its purpose is to help them with blockers, give and get feedback, and keep their growth goals moving, so that status updates take up as little of it as possible.

Notes from our last 1:1s:
"""
{{previous_notes}}
"""

What I know about their current work and priorities:
"""
{{current_work}}
"""

Their development goals: {{growth_goals}}
Feedback I want to give, if any: {{feedback_to_give}}

Format:
- A short agenda with time boxes that add up to the meeting length. Leave the first slot open for whatever they bring.
- For each item, one or two open questions I can ask, for example "What's taking more of your time than it should right now?", rather than yes or no questions.
- Follow-ups from last time: each open action from the notes, with who owns it.
- If I have feedback to give, a short version using situation, behavior and impact, in plain words, ending with a question that invites their view.

Keep the agenda under 250 words so it fits on one screen. Avoid filling the meeting with status items I could get from a written update, and do not add topics about their personal life unless they raised them in the notes.

The agenda should feel like a conversation they would want to have, not a review.

If the notes do not make clear whether an action was finished, list it as "check status"; do not assume it was done.

Help me give specific feedback to {{person}}. It is {{feedback_type}}. I want them to know exactly what they did, why it mattered and what to do next, so that they can repeat it or change it. Vague feedback such as "great job" or "be more proactive" does neither.

What I observed myself (what happened, when, and the effect):
"""
{{observations}}
"""

What I want them to keep doing or do differently: {{desired_behavior}}
Context that matters, such as their experience or workload: {{context}}
Where I will give it: {{setting}}

Write three numbered parts:
1. What to say: 60 to 150 words of spoken language, in this order: the situation, the specific behavior, its impact on the work, the team or a customer, and the next step. End with a question that invites their view, for example "How did it look from your side?"
2. If it includes correction: two likely responses (for example disagreement, or a reason I did not know about) and a calm reply to each.
3. A written follow-up of two or three sentences I can send afterwards to confirm what we agreed.

Keep to behavior and its effects. Avoid labels about personality or attitude ("lazy", "abrasive", "not a team player"), the words "always" and "never", comparisons with colleagues, and hiding the point between two compliments. Praise should be as specific as correction. Do not mention health, family or other personal matters, and do not speculate about motives.

The feedback should be something I could say in two minutes and they could act on the same day.

If my observations are vague or second-hand, say so before the script and tell me what to find out first. If this is part of a pattern that could lead to formal action, note at the top that formal steps should be documented and reviewed with HR, and keep this conversation informal.

You help managers write fair, specific performance reviews. You turn the manager's evidence into clear writing and leave every judgment about rating, pay and promotion to the manager.

<review_guidelines>
{{review_guidelines}}
</review_guidelines>

<goals_for_the_period>
{{goals}}
</goals_for_the_period>

<manager_notes>
{{manager_notes}}
</manager_notes>

<self_review>
{{self_review}}
</self_review>

<peer_feedback>
{{peer_feedback}}
</peer_feedback>

Draft a performance review of {{employee_role}} for {{review_period}}, using the material above. The rating I intend to give is {{intended_rating}}. The draft is for me to edit, and I decide the final wording and rating. The employee and calibration reviewers may read it, so that every statement needs evidence behind it.

Structure the draft under the headings my review guidelines use. If they give none, use: Summary, Results against goals, Strengths, Areas to grow, Goals for next period.

Write it like this:
- Tie each claim about performance to a specific example from the notes, peer feedback or self-review, with its date or project where given. For example, "Cut month-end reporting from five days to three by automating the reconciliation (Q2)" rather than "great at efficiency".
- Put results first, then how they were achieved.
- Describe behavior and outcomes, not personality. Avoid words such as "abrasive", "emotional", "aggressive" or "bubbly", which are often applied unevenly across groups, and use the same standard of evidence for strengths and for areas to grow.
- State areas to grow plainly, each paired with one concrete next step.
- Where the self-review and my notes disagree, present both and leave the reconciliation to me.

Length: 400 to 600 words, in short paragraphs and bullet points. The review should read as fair to someone who knows the employee's work: specific, balanced and free of surprises.

Leave out anything about health, leave, family, age or any other protected characteristic or protected activity, even if it appears in the notes, and list what you left out after the draft under "Removed" so I can check. Do not mention pay or promotion.

If the material says nothing about one of the goals, say so under that goal rather than filling the gap.

After the draft, add "Check before sending": statements that rest on a single source, places where the evidence looks weaker or stronger than the intended rating suggests, and anything you could not verify from the material. Do not change the rating yourself.

Help me write my self-assessment for my performance review covering {{review_period}}. My manager and possibly a calibration group will read it, and it may stay in my file, so every claim needs evidence and the tone should be confident and honest.

The review form or questions, with any word limits and rating scale:
"""
{{review_form}}
"""

My goals for the period:
"""
{{goals}}
"""

What I did (wins, projects, figures, feedback I received), with dates where I have them:
"""
{{evidence}}
"""

What did not go well, and what I learned or changed:
"""
{{challenges}}
"""

What I want next (skills, scope, promotion): {{next_goals}}

Task: Answer each question or section of the form, in the form's order and in the first person. If the form has no questions, use the headings Results against goals, Other contributions, What I would do differently, and Goals for next period.

How to write it:
- Lead each answer with the result, then how I got it. Tie each claim to a specific project, date, figure or piece of feedback from my material. For example, "Launched the new intake form in March, which cut related support tickets by [figure from my notes]" rather than "Worked hard on the intake form".
- Separate my contribution from the team's.
- State misses plainly, with what I learned or changed, without long apologies or blaming others.
- Make next-period goals specific enough that my manager and I could both tell at the next review whether I met them.
- Follow the form's word limits. If it has none, keep the whole assessment to 300 to 500 words.

Do not:
- Add achievements, numbers or feedback I did not give, or inflate my part.
- Include health, family or other personal matters, or complaints about named colleagues. If my notes contain them, list them under "Better raised in conversation" so I can decide.
- Choose a self-rating for me. If the form asks for one, suggest a rating with the evidence for it and mark it for me to decide.

If a goal has no evidence in my material, say so under that goal and ask me what happened, instead of filling the gap.

Write a promotion case for {{employee_role}}, from {{current_level}} to {{target_level}}. It is for {{audience}}, who will compare it with other cases, so it must show with evidence that this person already works at the next level, not that they work hard or have been here a long time.

Expectations for the target level (career framework or level guide):
"""
{{level_expectations}}
"""

Evidence: projects, results, scope and examples with dates:
"""
{{evidence}}
"""

Feedback from peers and stakeholders, quoted as given:
"""
{{peer_feedback}}
"""

Areas where they are still growing: {{growth_areas}}
Format or word limit my company uses: {{format_rules}}

Structure, unless my company's format says otherwise:
1. Summary: three or four sentences making the case.
2. Evidence against each expectation: a table with the columns Expectation, Evidence, Impact, When. Use the level guide's own wording in the first column. For example: "Leads work across teams | Led the billing migration with finance and support, owning the plan and the cutover | Invoice errors fell by a third | Q2".
3. Scope and impact: two short paragraphs on the size and importance of the work.
4. Growth areas: stated honestly, with why they do not block the promotion.
5. Endorsements: short quotes from the feedback, attributed by role.

Keep it to 500 to 800 words. The case should convince a skeptical reader who has never met this person, because every claim points to something that happened.

Use only the evidence I have given. Do not invent results, numbers or quotes, and do not strengthen the wording of the feedback. Leave out tenure, effort and hours worked as arguments, as well as personal circumstances and comparisons with named colleagues. Do not mention pay.

Where an expectation has no evidence, write "No evidence yet" in the table rather than stretching another example to fit, and flag any gaps at the end. This is a draft for me to edit: the decision belongs to the promotion process, and any formal paperwork goes through HR.

Help me prepare a written case for {{request}} to bring to {{manager_role}}. The decision belongs to my manager and the company, so the case has to make it easy for my manager to say yes and to argue for me with whoever approves pay and promotions.

My current role, time in it and current pay if relevant: {{current_role}}

My results and contributions, with dates and figures where I have them:
"""
{{results}}
"""

What the next level is expected to do (career ladder or job description), or "none":
"""
{{next_level}}
"""

Market pay data I gathered myself, with the source of each figure, or "none":
"""
{{market_data}}
"""

What I know about timing and context (review cycle, budget, recent changes): {{context}}

Task: Produce four parts.
1. The written case, 300 to 450 words: the ask in the first paragraph; my results, each tied to what it meant for the team or the business; evidence that I already do parts of the next-level work, matched to the expectations above; the market data with its sources; and a specific ask with a proposed timeline.
2. Talking points for the conversation: five short bullets in the order I would say them.
3. Likely objections, such as "no budget this cycle", "not yet" or "we need to see more of X", each with a calm, factual response from my material, and a fallback ask such as a review date with agreed criteria.
4. Weak spots: claims that rest on thin evidence, and what would strengthen them.

Rules:
- Use only the figures, results and sources I gave. Do not invent salary ranges, market rates or percentages. If the market data says "none", state no market figure: write [market range and source] and list the kinds of sources I could check, such as pay ranges in job postings or my company's pay bands.
- Do not compare my pay with named colleagues, mention outside offers unless my material says I have one, or include ultimatums.
- Keep the tone confident and factual, not aggrieved. Make sure each claim could survive a follow-up question.

If my results do not clearly support the ask, say so plainly under weak spots, rather than writing a case that oversells.

Prepare three ways to share a fixed pay increase budget across the employees below, for {{decision_makers}} to compare. These are options to support a decision, not a recommendation: the people named decide, and HR reviews the final increases, including any pay equity questions, before anything is communicated.

Budget: {{budget}}

Our guidelines (minimum or maximum increase, eligibility, effective date):
"""
{{guidelines}}
"""

Employee data, one row per person, with an ID, role, current pay, the pay range for the role and the latest performance rating:
"""
{{employee_data}}
"""

Scenarios:
A. Merit: increases weighted by performance rating only.
B. Merit and position in range: larger increases for strong performers who are low in their range, using compa-ratio (current pay divided by the range midpoint).
C. Base plus merit: the same base percentage for everyone eligible, with the rest of the budget weighted by rating.

For each scenario, give:
- The rule as a one-line formula, so it can be rebuilt in a spreadsheet.
- A table with the columns ID, Rating, Current pay, Compa-ratio, Increase %, Increase amount, New pay, New compa-ratio, plus a total row. The total must not exceed the budget; show any amount left over.
- Three to five sentences on the trade-offs.

A good result lets {{decision_makers}} see, for each option, who gets what, what it costs and who it leaves behind, with every figure traceable to the formula.

Then add "Points for review": anyone who would end up below the range minimum or above the maximum, anyone with no increase, and people in the same role with the same rating whose new pay differs noticeably, so the reason can be checked.

Rules:
- Base every proposal only on rating, position in range and the guidelines. Do not use names, age, gender, race, ethnicity, nationality, disability, health, family status, leave taken or any other protected characteristic, and ignore such details if they appear in the data.
- Do not invent ranges, ratings or figures, and do not adjust numbers quietly to make a total fit. Show amounts to the nearest whole unit of {{currency}}.
- End with a reminder to check the arithmetic in a spreadsheet before using it.

If a row is missing current pay, a range or a rating, do not guess: leave that person out of all three scenarios, list them under "Missing data", and say that each scenario's totals will change once they are added.

Build a succession plan for the key roles below, with a nine-box grid, for {{audience}} to discuss in a talent review. It is a starting point for that discussion: placements are agreed by the leaders in the room with HR, and nothing in it is a promise of promotion or a judgment to share with the people named.

Key roles, why each matters, and how likely it is to fall vacant:
"""
{{key_roles}}
"""

Notes on possible successors, one block per person, using initials or IDs. For each: current role, performance evidence (results and ratings), evidence of potential (larger scope taken on, how quickly they learned new work, how they have led others), and career interests only as the person has stated them:
"""
{{talent_notes}}
"""

Planning horizon: {{horizon}}

Produce:
1. Nine-box grid: a 3 by 3 table with potential (high, medium, low) as rows and performance (low, medium, high) as columns, and each person's initials in a cell.
2. Evidence table with the columns Person, Performance placement and evidence, Potential placement and evidence, Basis (evidence or mostly opinion).
3. Succession table with the columns Key role, Successors (up to three), Readiness (ready now, 1 to 2 years, 3 years or more), Gap to close, Development steps (two or three concrete ones, such as a stretch assignment or covering for the role holder), Emergency cover if no one is ready.
4. Risks: roles with no ready-now successor, people named for too many roles, and single points of failure.

Keep any text outside the tables under 300 words.

Rules:
- Use only the notes. Do not invent results, ratings or interests.
- Do not use or mention age, years to retirement, family situation, pregnancy or leave, health, disability, gender, race, religion, nationality or any other protected characteristic, or proxies for them such as "energy", "fresh blood" or "fit", because they are unfair and in many places unlawful grounds for these decisions.
- Treat potential as evidence of what someone has done, not as a feeling about them.

A good result lets two leaders read the same evidence and place each person in the same box. Where the notes give only opinions, such as "strong leader" with no example, do not guess: place the person provisionally, mark the basis "mostly opinion", and list the question to answer at the review.

You are an experienced management coach. You help managers prepare hard conversations that are honest about the problem, fair to the other person and focused on what happens next.

<situation>
{{situation}}
</situation>

<what_i_have_observed>
{{observations}}
</what_i_have_observed>

<what_i_want>
{{desired_outcome}}
</what_i_want>

<relevant_context>
{{context}}
</relevant_context>

Help me prepare for a conversation with {{person}} about the situation above. I want it to end with a shared understanding of the problem and agreed next steps, and I want them to feel heard.

Produce a three-part guide, with a heading for each part:
1. Opening: two or three sentences I could say to start. Name the topic in the first sentence, describe one specific observation using situation, behavior and impact, and invite their view. For example: "I want to talk about the last two project deadlines. Both reports came in after the client review, and we had to ask for an extension each time. I'd like to understand what's been getting in the way."
2. Listening: five open questions to understand their side, and two or three ways they might respond (for example surprise, disagreement or a personal reason), each with a calm way I could reply.
3. Next steps: what a specific, checkable commitment could look like, and how to close the meeting and confirm it in writing.

Keep it under 500 words, in plain spoken language rather than HR terms. The opening should sound like me on a good day: direct, calm and specific.

Stay with behavior and its effect on the work. Do not diagnose their motives, personality or mental state, and do not speculate about health or personal life. If they raise a health issue, a disability, a family matter, a complaint of discrimination or harassment, or anything that sounds like a legal or safety issue, the guide should tell me to pause, listen, promise nothing, and involve {{hr_contact}} before going further, because those conversations have rules a manager should not handle alone.

If this conversation could lead to formal discipline, say so at the top and suggest I check the process with {{hr_contact}} first. If my observations are vague or second-hand, flag it and suggest what I should confirm before the meeting.

Draft a performance improvement plan (PIP) for {{employee_role}}. Its purpose is to give them a clear, fair and genuinely achievable chance to meet the expectations of their role, with the support to do it. {{hr_contact}} will review it before the employee sees it, and the final content is decided with HR.

The role's expectations (from the job description or agreed goals):
"""
{{role_expectations}}
"""

Performance gaps, with the dates and examples I have documented:
"""
{{documented_gaps}}
"""

Earlier conversations about these gaps: {{previous_conversations}}
Support I can offer: {{support_offered}}
Length of the plan: {{plan_length}}
What our policy says happens at the end: {{policy_outcome}}

Use these headings:
1. Purpose: two neutral, factual sentences.
2. Areas to improve: for each gap, the expectation, what has happened (dates and examples from my notes), and the measurable standard that will count as meeting it, for example "All weekly reports submitted by Friday at 5 p.m. for six consecutive weeks."
3. Support: what I and the company will provide, with dates.
4. Check-ins: a meeting schedule, such as weekly, and what each meeting reviews.
5. Timeline and outcome: the plan's dates and what happens at the end, using only the policy text above.
6. Acknowledgement: lines for the employee and manager to sign, noting that signing confirms receipt, not agreement.

Keep it to 500 to 800 words in plain, neutral language. Every standard must be specific, measurable, and reachable within the plan's length with the support offered.

Include only work performance and conduct I have documented. Leave out opinions about personality or attitude, guesses about motives, and anything about health, leave, family, age or other protected characteristics, even if it appears in my notes; list what you left out under "Removed for HR review". Do not add consequences beyond the policy text.

If a gap has no dated example or no measurable standard, flag it under "Needs evidence before use" instead of filling it in. If my notes mention a health issue, a disability, leave, or a recent complaint by the employee, put a note at the top that HR must review the situation before this goes any further.

<company_priorities>
{{company_priorities}}
</company_priorities>

<team_context>
Team and what it owns: {{team_scope}}
Capacity next quarter: {{capacity}}
Last quarter's results: {{last_quarter}}
Work already committed: {{committed_work}}
</team_context>

<constraints>
- Each goal ties to one of the company priorities above, named in brackets after it.
- Use only baselines and numbers from the context. Where a goal needs a baseline that is missing, write "baseline: to measure" and make measuring it the first key result, instead of inventing a number.
- Each key result is an outcome someone could check at the end of the quarter, not an activity. For example, "Cut median time to first reply from 9 hours to 4 hours" is a key result; "Launch a new library of reply templates" is an activity.
- Fit the goals to the stated capacity, including the committed work. Do not plan as if the team had no other work.
</constraints>

<format>
Markdown:
- 3 to 4 goals, each a one-sentence objective with 2 to 3 key results in a numbered list.
- After each goal, one line on what the team will stop or deprioritize to make room for it.
- A short table at the end with the columns Key result, Baseline, Target, How it will be measured, Owner (write "to assign" if the context names no one).
</format>

<task>
Based on the priorities and context above, draft quarterly goals for {{team_name}}, for the manager to review with the team before they are final. Good goals should be few, ambitious but reachable with the stated capacity, and measurable without debate. If the company priorities and the team's scope do not connect clearly, say so and suggest one question to ask leadership before planning.
</task>