FREESKILL v1.0UPDATED 2026-08

Annual Reviews

Annual Reviews turns supplied period evidence into a manager draft, self-review, or analysis-only audit while leaving ratings and every employment decision with authorized humans.

A credible review connects each material claim to supplied evidence from the review period. It separates individual contribution from shared results, observable behavior from personality, and attributed feedback from inference. Missing incidents, dates, metrics, rubric terms, and attribution stay visible instead of being repaired with plausible detail.

This playbook may summarize evidence, map it to supplied rubric criteria, and audit a rating already supplied by an authorized human. It never recommends, selects, derives, ranks, proposes, or populates a rating. Promotion, compensation, termination, layoff, and other employment decisions remain in their authorized human processes.

The review can improve the evidence record. It cannot inherit the authority to rate or decide someone's employment.

SIGNALS YOU NEED THIS

The review uses adjectives or broad patterns without dated incidents and supported impact.

Recent work crowds out earlier evidence, or a shared result is assigned to one person.

A rating is requested before the rubric, contrary evidence, or full-period record is available.

REPLACES

Personality labels, recency-weighted narratives, invented proof, and automated rating or employment decisions.

PAIRS WITH

SBI Format Feedback, Goals, and Coaching Models. Compensation and formal employment processes stay separate.

0 of 4 steps complete

STEP 01Lock the review frame and evidence ledger

Record the review period, role expectations, required form, supplied rubric, authorized reviewer, and delivery boundary. Assign an evidence ID to each supplied incident, contribution, result, and feedback item while preserving date, scope, source, attribution, and gaps.

REVIEW SUBJECT
  R-17
REVIEW PERIOD
  January 1 through December 31
AUTHORIZED REVIEWER
  Review owner R-01

E1
  Date: March 14
  Behavior: Documented the supplied intake process.
  Impact: The team used it for 18 requests.

E2
  Date: September 6
  Behavior: Added a check after finding a handoff gap.
  Impact: Returned requests moved from 7 to 2 that month.

STEP 02Map evidence without generating a rating

Apply only the supplied rubric. Link evidence IDs to each criterion, distinguish individual and shared results, and name contrary or missing evidence. If an authorized human supplied a rating, audit its relationship to the evidence and rubric without proposing another rating.

SUPPLIED RUBRIC CRITERION
  Consistently meets role expectations with documented improvements.
SUPPORTED EVIDENCE
  E1 and E2
CONTRARY OR MISSING EVIDENCE
  Earlier-period coverage beyond E1: Evidence needed.
RATING
  No rating supplied. No rating generated.
AUTHORIZED DECISION
  Review owner must decide.

STEP 03Draft behavior, impact, and development actions

Use evidence IDs for strengths, contributions, growth priorities, and goals. Describe observable work and supported impact, not motive or personality. Keep missing measures, targets, owners, dates, and attribution visible, and give every action a human owner and review date.

SUPPORTED STRENGTH
  R-17 improved the intake mechanism in E1 and E2. The supplied results were 18 requests using the documented process and returned requests moving from 7 to 2 that month.

GROWTH PRIORITY
  Incident, date, behavior, and impact needed.

DEVELOPMENT ACTION
  Document the remaining two intake paths.
  Owner: Review owner R-01
  Due: June 30
  Completion evidence: Two approved path documents
  Review date: Date needed

STEP 04Audit balance and prepare human review

Check recency, halo, horns, attribution, similarity, visibility, contrary evidence, anonymity, and period coverage. Prepare delivery questions and corrections without making compensation, promotion, termination, layoff, or rating decisions. Route those decisions to the authorized human process.

AUDIT
  Period coverage: Partial. Earlier-period evidence needed.
  Attribution: Supplied scope preserved.
  Personality inference: None.
  Protected-characteristic inference: None.
  Anonymous source exposure: None.

HUMAN REVIEW QUESTIONS
  - What earlier-period evidence should be added?
  - Does the supplied rubric require another criterion?
  - What rating, if any, does the authorized reviewer supply?

Download the folder into your agent's skills directory. It uses only the material you provide and makes no remote calls.

skills/annual-reviews

annual-reviews/
├── SKILL.md                         ← manager, self-review, and audit modes
├── meta.yaml                        ← version, sources, test prompts, changelog
├── LICENSE.md                       ← MIT
├── assets/
│   ├── manager-review-template.md   ← evidence-linked manager draft
│   ├── self-review-template.md      ← supported self-review draft
│   └── review-audit-template.md     ← analysis-only review audit
└── references/
    ├── review-evidence-standard.md  ← evidence, attribution, and rubric rules
    └── review-delivery.md           ← delivery and calibration questions

INVOKE IT LIKE THIS

"Draft this annual review from my evidence notes."

Download skill v1.0 View source files

WORKS WITHClaude Code