{ "schemaVersion": "1.0", "item": { "slug": "afrexai-performance-review", "name": "Performance Review Engine", "source": "tencent", "type": "skill", "category": "AI 智能", "sourceUrl": "https://clawhub.ai/1kalin/afrexai-performance-review", "canonicalUrl": "https://clawhub.ai/1kalin/afrexai-performance-review", "targetPlatform": "OpenClaw" }, "install": { "downloadMode": "redirect", "downloadUrl": "/downloads/afrexai-performance-review", "sourceDownloadUrl": "https://wry-manatee-359.convex.site/api/v1/download?slug=afrexai-performance-review", "sourcePlatform": "tencent", "targetPlatform": "OpenClaw", "installMethod": "Manual import", "extraction": "Extract archive", "prerequisites": [ "OpenClaw" ], "packageFormat": "ZIP package", "includedAssets": [ "README.md", "SKILL.md" ], "primaryDoc": "SKILL.md", "quickSetup": [ "Download the package from Yavira.", "Extract the archive and review SKILL.md first.", "Import or place the package into your OpenClaw setup." ], "agentAssist": { "summary": "Hand the extracted package to your coding agent with a concrete install brief instead of figuring it out manually.", "steps": [ "Download the package from Yavira.", "Extract it into a folder your agent can access.", "Paste one of the prompts below and point your agent at the extracted folder." ], "prompts": [ { "label": "New install", "body": "I downloaded a skill package from Yavira. Read SKILL.md from the extracted folder and install it by following the included instructions. Then review README.md for any prerequisites, environment setup, or post-install checks. Tell me what you changed and call out any manual steps you could not complete." }, { "label": "Upgrade existing", "body": "I downloaded an updated skill package from Yavira. Read SKILL.md from the extracted folder, compare it with my current installation, and upgrade it while preserving any custom configuration unless the package docs explicitly say otherwise. Then review README.md for any prerequisites, environment setup, or post-install checks. Summarize what changed and any follow-up checks I should run." } ] }, "sourceHealth": { "source": "tencent", "status": "healthy", "reason": "direct_download_ok", "recommendedAction": "download", "checkedAt": "2026-04-30T16:55:25.780Z", "expiresAt": "2026-05-07T16:55:25.780Z", "httpStatus": 200, "finalUrl": "https://wry-manatee-359.convex.site/api/v1/download?slug=network", "contentType": "application/zip", "probeMethod": "head", "details": { "probeUrl": "https://wry-manatee-359.convex.site/api/v1/download?slug=network", "contentDisposition": "attachment; filename=\"network-1.0.0.zip\"", "redirectLocation": null, "bodySnippet": null }, "scope": "source", "summary": "Source download looks usable.", "detail": "Yavira can redirect you to the upstream package for this source.", "primaryActionLabel": "Download for OpenClaw", "primaryActionHref": "/downloads/afrexai-performance-review" }, "validation": { "installChecklist": [ "Use the Yavira download entry.", "Review SKILL.md after the package is downloaded.", "Confirm the extracted package contains the expected setup assets." ], "postInstallChecks": [ "Confirm the extracted package includes the expected docs or setup files.", "Validate the skill or prompts are available in your target agent workspace.", "Capture any manual follow-up steps the agent could not complete." ] }, "downloadPageUrl": "https://openagent3.xyz/downloads/afrexai-performance-review", "agentPageUrl": "https://openagent3.xyz/skills/afrexai-performance-review/agent", "manifestUrl": "https://openagent3.xyz/skills/afrexai-performance-review/agent.json", "briefUrl": "https://openagent3.xyz/skills/afrexai-performance-review/agent.md" }, "agentAssist": { "summary": "Hand the extracted package to your coding agent with a concrete install brief instead of figuring it out manually.", "steps": [ "Download the package from Yavira.", "Extract it into a folder your agent can access.", "Paste one of the prompts below and point your agent at the extracted folder." ], "prompts": [ { "label": "New install", "body": "I downloaded a skill package from Yavira. Read SKILL.md from the extracted folder and install it by following the included instructions. Then review README.md for any prerequisites, environment setup, or post-install checks. Tell me what you changed and call out any manual steps you could not complete." }, { "label": "Upgrade existing", "body": "I downloaded an updated skill package from Yavira. Read SKILL.md from the extracted folder, compare it with my current installation, and upgrade it while preserving any custom configuration unless the package docs explicitly say otherwise. Then review README.md for any prerequisites, environment setup, or post-install checks. Summarize what changed and any follow-up checks I should run." } ] }, "documentation": { "source": "clawhub", "primaryDoc": "SKILL.md", "sections": [ { "title": "Performance Review Engine", "body": "Your AI-powered performance management system. Write reviews that develop people, not just evaluate them. From self-assessments to 360° feedback to calibration — complete frameworks for every review cycle." }, { "title": "Quick Start", "body": "Tell your agent:\n\n\"Write a performance review for [name] — they exceeded on delivery but need to improve communication\"\n\"Help me write my self-assessment for H2 2025\"\n\"Run a 360° feedback collection for my team of 6\"\n\"Prepare calibration notes for my 4 direct reports\"" }, { "title": "Cycle Configuration Template", "body": "cycle:\n name: \"H2 2025 Performance Review\"\n period: \"2025-07-01 to 2025-12-31\"\n type: annual | semi-annual | quarterly\n timeline:\n self_assessment_due: \"2026-01-10\"\n peer_feedback_due: \"2026-01-17\"\n manager_draft_due: \"2026-01-24\"\n calibration_session: \"2026-01-28\"\n delivery_window: \"2026-01-29 to 2026-02-07\"\n participants:\n - name: \"\"\n role: \"\"\n level: \"\"\n tenure_months: 0\n previous_rating: \"\"\n peer_reviewers: []\n skip_level_reviewer: \"\"\n rating_scale:\n 1: \"Does Not Meet Expectations\"\n 2: \"Partially Meets Expectations\"\n 3: \"Meets Expectations\"\n 4: \"Exceeds Expectations\"\n 5: \"Significantly Exceeds Expectations\"\n competencies:\n - name: \"Delivery & Execution\"\n weight: 30\n - name: \"Technical/Functional Expertise\"\n weight: 25\n - name: \"Communication & Collaboration\"\n weight: 20\n - name: \"Leadership & Influence\"\n weight: 15\n - name: \"Growth & Development\"\n weight: 10" }, { "title": "Rating Distribution Guidelines", "body": "RatingTarget %Description5 - Significantly Exceeds5-10%Transformational impact, raises the bar for everyone4 - Exceeds20-25%Consistently above expectations, visible impact3 - Meets50-60%Solid, reliable performer at level2 - Partially Meets10-15%Gaps in key areas, needs focused improvement1 - Does Not Meet0-5%Serious performance concerns, PIP candidate\n\nForced distribution warning: These are guidelines, not quotas. If a team genuinely has 80% high performers, the distribution should reflect reality. Forcing bell curves creates distrust." }, { "title": "STAR-I Method (Situation → Task → Action → Result → Impact)", "body": "Guide employees to write self-assessments that actually demonstrate value:\n\n### Achievement: [Title]\n\n**Situation:** What was the context or challenge?\n**Task:** What was your specific responsibility?\n**Action:** What did you do? (Be specific — tools, approaches, decisions)\n**Result:** What was the measurable outcome?\n**Impact:** How did this affect the team/org/company beyond the immediate result?\n\n**Competency alignment:** [Which competency does this demonstrate?]\n**Evidence:** [Links, metrics, Slack messages, PRs, customer feedback]" }, { "title": "Self-Assessment Prompts by Competency", "body": "Delivery & Execution:\n\nWhat were your top 3-5 deliverables this period?\nWhich projects were on time/budget? Which weren't, and why?\nHow did you handle blockers or scope changes?\nWhat did you ship that you're most proud of?\n\nTechnical/Functional Expertise:\n\nWhat new skills or knowledge did you develop?\nWhere did you serve as the go-to expert?\nWhat technical decisions did you make and what was the outcome?\nHow did you stay current in your field?\n\nCommunication & Collaboration:\n\nHow did you contribute to team effectiveness?\nGive an example of resolving a disagreement productively\nHow did you share knowledge with others?\nWhat cross-functional work did you do?\n\nLeadership & Influence:\n\nHow did you influence outcomes beyond your direct responsibilities?\nDid you mentor or develop others? How?\nWhat initiatives did you drive or champion?\nHow did you contribute to team culture?\n\nGrowth & Development:\n\nWhat feedback did you receive and act on?\nWhat's your biggest area of growth this period?\nWhere do you still want to improve?\nWhat are your goals for next period?" }, { "title": "Self-Assessment Quality Checklist", "body": "Includes 5-8 concrete achievements with metrics\n Uses STAR-I format (not just \"I did X\")\n Covers all competency areas, not just delivery\n Acknowledges at least 1-2 growth areas honestly\n References specific feedback received and actions taken\n Includes forward-looking goals\n Avoids vague language (\"helped with,\" \"was involved in\")\n Links to evidence where possible\n Appropriate length (1-2 pages, not 10)\n Written in first person, professional but human tone" }, { "title": "The OBSERVE Framework", "body": "Structure every review around:\n\nO — Outcomes delivered: What did they ship/achieve? Metrics and evidence.\nB — Behaviors demonstrated: HOW they worked, not just what they produced.\nS — Strengths to leverage: Their superpower — what should they do MORE of?\nE — Edges to develop: Growth areas framed as opportunities, not failures.\nR — Relationships & impact: How they affected team dynamics and culture.\nV — Vision forward: Clear expectations and development plan for next period.\nE — Evidence cited: Every claim backed by specific examples." }, { "title": "Writing Rules", "body": "Specific > Vague\n\n❌ \"Great job this quarter\"\n✅ \"Led the API migration affecting 12 services, completing 2 weeks ahead of schedule with zero customer-facing incidents\"\n\n\n\nBehavior > Trait\n\n❌ \"Is a natural leader\"\n✅ \"Organized weekly knowledge-sharing sessions that improved team velocity by 15% and reduced onboarding time for 3 new hires\"\n\n\n\nPattern > Incident\n\n❌ \"Missed the Q3 deadline\"\n✅ \"Delivery timelines were missed on 3 of 5 projects, consistently by 1-2 weeks, suggesting estimation needs improvement\"\n\n\n\nForward > Backward\n\n❌ \"Failed to communicate effectively\"\n✅ \"Strengthening stakeholder communication — specifically proactive status updates — would multiply the impact of their strong technical work\"\n\n\n\nBalanced always\n\nEven top performers need development feedback\nEven struggling performers have strengths to acknowledge\nTarget ratio: 60% strengths / 40% development (adjust by rating)" }, { "title": "Review Templates by Rating", "body": "Rating 5 — Significantly Exceeds\n\n## Performance Review: [Name] — H2 2025\n**Rating: Significantly Exceeds Expectations (5/5)**\n\n### Summary\n[Name] delivered exceptional results this period, consistently operating above their current level. Their impact extended well beyond their role, influencing [team/org/company] outcomes in measurable ways.\n\n### Key Achievements\n1. **[Achievement]** — [STAR-I summary with metrics]\n2. **[Achievement]** — [STAR-I summary with metrics]\n3. **[Achievement]** — [STAR-I summary with metrics]\n\n### Competency Assessment\n| Competency | Rating | Evidence |\n|-----------|--------|----------|\n| Delivery & Execution | 5 | [Specific examples] |\n| Technical Expertise | [X] | [Specific examples] |\n| Communication | [X] | [Specific examples] |\n| Leadership | [X] | [Specific examples] |\n| Growth | [X] | [Specific examples] |\n\n### Strengths to Leverage\n- [Strength 1] — this is a differentiator that should be amplified\n- [Strength 2] — consider giving them a platform to share this more broadly\n\n### Development Opportunities\nEven at this exceptional level, continued growth in [area] would unlock [next-level impact]. Specifically:\n- [Development area with actionable suggestion]\n- [Stretch assignment or learning recommendation]\n\n### Forward Look\n[Name] is ready for [promotion/expanded scope/leadership opportunity]. Recommended next steps: [specific action].\n\nRating 3 — Meets Expectations\n\n## Performance Review: [Name] — H2 2025\n**Rating: Meets Expectations (3/5)**\n\n### Summary\n[Name] delivered solid, reliable work this period, meeting the expectations of their role. They are a dependable contributor who [key positive theme].\n\n### Key Achievements\n1. **[Achievement]** — [Evidence]\n2. **[Achievement]** — [Evidence]\n3. **[Achievement]** — [Evidence]\n\n### Competency Assessment\n[Same table format]\n\n### Strengths\n- [Strength 1 with evidence]\n- [Strength 2 with evidence]\n\n### Development Areas\nTo move from \"meets\" to \"exceeds,\" [Name] should focus on:\n1. **[Area]** — Currently [current state]. The gap is [specific gap]. To close it: [actionable steps].\n2. **[Area]** — [Same structure]\n\n### Forward Look\nGoals for next period:\n1. [Measurable goal tied to development area]\n2. [Stretch goal that would demonstrate growth]\n3. [Continuation goal building on strengths]\n\nRating 1-2 — Below Expectations\n\n## Performance Review: [Name] — H2 2025\n**Rating: [Partially Meets / Does Not Meet] Expectations ([1-2]/5)**\n\n### Summary\n[Name] struggled to meet expectations in key areas this period. While [acknowledge any positives], significant gaps in [areas] need to be addressed.\n\n### Performance Gaps\n1. **[Gap]** — Expected: [what was expected]. Actual: [what happened]. Impact: [business impact]. Examples: [2-3 specific instances].\n2. **[Gap]** — [Same structure]\n\n### What Was Done Well\n- [Genuine positive — never skip this section]\n\n### Context Considered\n- [Any mitigating factors: reorg, unclear expectations, personal circumstances]\n- [Whether support/coaching was provided and when]\n\n### Improvement Plan\n| Area | Current State | Target State | Actions | Timeline | Support Needed |\n|------|--------------|-------------|---------|----------|----------------|\n| [Gap 1] | [Specific] | [Specific] | [Steps] | [Date] | [Resources] |\n| [Gap 2] | [Specific] | [Specific] | [Steps] | [Date] | [Resources] |\n\n### Consequences\nIf improvement to [specific measurable standard] is not demonstrated by [date]:\n- [Next step: PIP / role change / separation]\n\n### Check-in Schedule\n- Weekly 1:1s focused on [areas]\n- 30-day checkpoint: [date]\n- 60-day checkpoint: [date]\n- Final assessment: [date]" }, { "title": "Peer Feedback Request Template", "body": "Hi [Peer Name],\n\nYou're invited to provide feedback on [Employee Name] for our [H2 2025] review cycle.\n\nPlease share your observations (10-15 min, ~200-400 words total):\n\n1. **What does [Name] do well?** (Think: specific projects, behaviors, impact on you/the team)\n2. **What could [Name] improve?** (Think: what would make them even more effective?)\n3. **How would you describe working with [Name]?** (Collaboration style, communication, reliability)\n4. **One thing [Name] should keep doing:** ___\n5. **One thing [Name] should start or do more of:** ___\n\nYour feedback will be anonymized and synthesized — [Name] will not see your individual responses verbatim.\n\nDue by: [Date]" }, { "title": "Feedback Synthesis Method", "body": "When combining multiple peer reviews:\n\nIdentify themes — What do 2+ people mention? Those are patterns, not noise.\nWeight by proximity — Feedback from close collaborators > occasional contacts.\nSeparate fact from feeling — \"Missed 3 deadlines\" is fact. \"Seems disengaged\" is perception (still valuable, but frame differently).\nPreserve outlier insights — If one person noticed something unique, it may still be valuable. Include as \"additionally noted.\"" }, { "title": "Synthesis Template", "body": "### 360° Feedback Summary for [Name]\n\n**Respondents:** [N] peers, [N] cross-functional, [N] skip-level\n\n**Consistent Strengths (mentioned by 2+ reviewers):**\n- [Theme] — \"[Representative quote]\" (paraphrased from [N] responses)\n- [Theme] — \"[Representative quote]\"\n\n**Consistent Development Areas:**\n- [Theme] — \"[Representative quote]\"\n- [Theme] — \"[Representative quote]\"\n\n**Notable Individual Observations:**\n- [Unique insight worth including]\n\n**Overall Sentiment:** [Positive / Mixed / Concerning]\n**Collaboration Rating (aggregated):** [Strong / Solid / Needs Improvement]" }, { "title": "Pre-Calibration Prep", "body": "For each direct report, prepare:\n\ncalibration_card:\n name: \"\"\n current_level: \"\"\n tenure: \"\"\n previous_rating: \"\"\n proposed_rating: \"\"\n rating_justification: \"\" # 2-3 sentences max\n top_achievement: \"\"\n biggest_gap: \"\"\n promotion_candidate: yes | no | not_yet\n flight_risk: low | medium | high\n key_question: \"\" # What you want the calibration group to weigh in on" }, { "title": "Calibration Discussion Framework", "body": "Round 1 — Present (2 min per person)\n\nManager presents: proposed rating, top achievement, biggest gap\nNo debate yet — just laying out the landscape\n\nRound 2 — Calibrate (5 min per person where needed)\n\nFocus on: rating 4s and 5s (are they truly exceptional?), rating 1s and 2s (is this fair?), any rating that changed from last cycle\nAsk: \"Would this person get the same rating on another team?\"\nAsk: \"Is this rating consistent with [comparable person]?\"\n\nRound 3 — Decide\n\nFinalize ratings\nFlag anyone who needs skip-level review\nIdentify promotion candidates\nIdentify flight risks needing retention action" }, { "title": "Calibration Bias Checklist", "body": "Before finalizing, check for:\n\nRecency bias — Are you over-weighting the last month vs. the full period?\n Halo/horns effect — Is one great/bad thing coloring the entire review?\n Similarity bias — Are you rating people like you higher?\n Central tendency — Are you avoiding extreme ratings when they're warranted?\n Leniency/strictness — Is your distribution shifted vs. the org?\n Attribution error — Are you blaming the person for systemic issues?\n Contrast effect — Are you comparing to the previous person reviewed rather than the standard?" }, { "title": "Conversation Structure (45-60 min)", "body": "Opening (5 min)\n\nSet the tone: \"This is a two-way conversation, not a verdict\"\nShare the rating upfront — don't make them wait\n\nAchievements (10 min)\n\nWalk through top 3-5 achievements\nLet them add context or achievements you missed\nBe genuinely appreciative — this isn't just preamble to criticism\n\nDevelopment (15 min)\n\nPresent 1-2 development areas (not 10)\nUse the pattern: \"I've observed [specific behavior] in [specific situations]. The impact was [what happened]. What I'd love to see is [desired behavior].\"\nAsk: \"Does this resonate? What's your perspective?\"\nListen. Actually listen.\n\n360° Themes (5 min)\n\nShare synthesized peer feedback\nHighlight: \"Your colleagues really value [X]\"\nDevelopment: \"A theme that came up was [Y] — thoughts?\"\n\nGoals & Development Plan (15 min)\n\nCo-create 3-5 goals for next period\nAt least 1 development goal, not just delivery goals\nIdentify specific actions, resources, support needed\nAgree on check-in cadence\n\nClose (5 min)\n\nSummarize key takeaways\nAsk: \"What do you need from me to be successful?\"\nEnd on forward-looking, supportive note" }, { "title": "Difficult Conversation Scripts", "body": "For underperformers:\n\"I want to be direct with you because I respect you and your potential here. Your performance this period was below what we need in [specific area]. Here's what I've observed... I want to work with you on a plan to get back on track. Are you willing to commit to that?\"\n\nFor strong performers who didn't get promoted:\n\"Your work this period was excellent — [specific examples]. The reason you're rated [X] rather than promoted is [specific gap]. Here's what I think it would take: [concrete steps]. I'm committed to supporting you in getting there.\"\n\nFor someone who disagrees with their rating:\n\"I hear you, and I want to understand your perspective. Can you walk me through the specific areas where you see it differently? ... I appreciate you sharing that. Here's how I weighed [factors]. [Either: Let me take this back and reconsider / I understand the disagreement, but here's why the rating stands].\"" }, { "title": "Development Plan Template", "body": "development_plan:\n employee: \"\"\n manager: \"\"\n period: \"H1 2026\"\n review_date: \"\"\n \n strengths_to_leverage:\n - strength: \"\"\n leverage_action: \"\" # How to use this more\n \n development_areas:\n - area: \"\"\n current_state: \"\"\n target_state: \"\"\n actions:\n - type: \"on_the_job\" # 70% of development\n description: \"\"\n timeline: \"\"\n - type: \"learning\" # 20% — coaching, mentoring, peer learning\n description: \"\"\n timeline: \"\"\n - type: \"formal\" # 10% — courses, certifications, conferences\n description: \"\"\n timeline: \"\"\n success_metrics: \"\"\n check_in_dates: []\n \n career_goals:\n short_term: \"\" # 6-12 months\n medium_term: \"\" # 1-3 years\n long_term: \"\" # 3-5 years\n \n support_needed:\n from_manager: \"\"\n from_org: \"\"\n budget_required: \"\"" }, { "title": "The 70-20-10 Development Mix", "body": "Type%ExamplesOn-the-job70%Stretch assignments, new projects, leading initiatives, cross-functional work, shadowingSocial learning20%Mentoring, coaching, peer feedback, communities of practice, teaching othersFormal learning10%Courses, certifications, conferences, books, structured programs\n\nCommon mistake: Over-indexing on formal learning (sending someone to a course) when on-the-job stretch would be 5x more effective." }, { "title": "1:1 Performance Check-in Template (Monthly)", "body": "## Monthly Check-in: [Name] — [Month Year]\n\n### Progress on Goals\n| Goal | Status | Notes |\n|------|--------|-------|\n| [Goal 1] | 🟢 On track / 🟡 At risk / 🔴 Off track | [Brief update] |\n\n### Recent Wins\n- [What went well this month]\n\n### Challenges\n- [What's been difficult]\n\n### Feedback Exchange\n- **Manager → Employee:** [One specific piece of feedback]\n- **Employee → Manager:** [Ask: \"What can I do differently to support you?\"]\n\n### Action Items\n- [ ] [Action] — Owner: [who] — By: [date]\n\n### Overall Pulse: 😊 Great / 😐 Fine / 😟 Struggling" }, { "title": "Real-Time Feedback Formula (SBI)", "body": "Situation: \"In yesterday's client presentation...\"\nBehavior: \"...you handled the pricing objection by reframing around ROI rather than discounting...\"\nImpact: \"...which kept us at full price and the client visibly shifted from skeptical to interested.\"\n\nDeliver within 48 hours. Positive feedback publicly (if they're comfortable). Constructive feedback privately. Always." }, { "title": "Individual Performance Score (0-100)", "body": "Score = Σ (competency_rating × competency_weight) × 20\n\nExample:\nDelivery (4/5 × 30%) + Technical (3/5 × 25%) + Communication (4/5 × 20%) \n+ Leadership (3/5 × 15%) + Growth (4/5 × 10%)\n= (1.20 + 0.75 + 0.80 + 0.45 + 0.40) = 3.60 / 5 = 72/100" }, { "title": "Team Health Dashboard", "body": "Track quarterly:\n\n## Team Performance Dashboard — Q4 2025\n\n**Team size:** [N]\n**Rating distribution:** ⭐5: [N] | ⭐4: [N] | ⭐3: [N] | ⭐2: [N] | ⭐1: [N]\n**Average score:** [X]/100\n**vs. last period:** [↑/↓ X points]\n\n**Promotion candidates:** [Names]\n**Flight risks:** [Names + risk level]\n**PIP/coaching:** [Names]\n\n**Top team strengths:** [Competencies scoring highest]\n**Team gaps:** [Competencies scoring lowest]\n**Development budget used:** [X]% of [Y] allocated\n\n**Engagement signals:**\n- Voluntary turnover: [X]%\n- Internal mobility: [X] transfers/promotions\n- 1:1 completion rate: [X]%\n- Goal completion rate: [X]%" }, { "title": "New Hire (< 6 months)", "body": "Evaluate against onboarding milestones, not full role expectations\nWeight learning speed and cultural integration higher\nCompare to \"expected ramp\" not to tenured peers\nRating floor of 3 unless genuine performance issues (distinguish slow ramp from bad fit)" }, { "title": "Role Change Mid-Cycle", "body": "Split the review: first half in old role, second half in new\nWeight the new role performance more heavily (it's the forward-looking signal)\nAcknowledge the transition tax — expect a temporary dip" }, { "title": "Remote/Hybrid Considerations", "body": "Evaluate output and impact, not visibility or hours\nSeek feedback from async collaborators, not just people in the office\nWatch for proximity bias — don't rate in-office people higher by default" }, { "title": "High Performer Wanting to Leave", "body": "Have the conversation: \"I value you and want to understand what would make you want to stay\"\nDon't inflate the rating as retention — it sets a precedent\nDocument the conversation and retention actions taken" }, { "title": "Inherited Team Member", "body": "Get context from previous manager (ask for their calibration card)\nBe transparent: \"I'm still building my understanding of your work\"\nLean more on peer feedback and objective metrics\nDon't default to \"meets\" because you don't know — do the research" }, { "title": "Manager Reviewing Someone They Don't Like", "body": "Stick to observable behaviors and measurable outcomes\nHave a peer manager gut-check your review for bias\nAsk yourself: \"If my favorite team member did exactly this, what would I rate them?\"" }, { "title": "11. Legal & Compliance Notes", "body": "Documentation rules:\n\nKeep all review documents for minimum 3 years (7 in regulated industries)\nFeedback must reference specific, observable behaviors — not personality traits\nNever reference protected characteristics (age, gender, disability, etc.)\nPIP documentation should be reviewed by HR/legal before delivery\nEmployee should sign acknowledging receipt (not agreement)\n\nPhrases to avoid:\n\n\"Cultural fit\" (can mask bias) → Use \"collaboration effectiveness\"\n\"Aggressive\" (gendered connotation) → Use \"assertive\" or \"direct\"\n\"Young/energetic\" → Use specific behaviors\n\"Not a team player\" → Cite specific collaboration gaps with examples" }, { "title": "Commands Reference", "body": "CommandWhat it does\"Start review cycle for [team]\"Creates cycle config with timeline\"Write self-assessment for [achievements]\"Generates STAR-I formatted self-review\"Write review for [name] — rating [X]\"Full manager review using OBSERVE framework\"Collect 360 feedback for [name]\"Generates peer feedback requests\"Synthesize feedback from [sources]\"Combines multiple inputs into themes\"Prepare calibration for [team]\"Creates calibration cards for all reports\"Create development plan for [name]\"Builds 70-20-10 development plan\"Monthly check-in for [name]\"Generates 1:1 template with goal tracking\"Give feedback on [situation]\"Formats using SBI framework\"Score [name] across competencies\"Calculates weighted performance score\"Team health dashboard\"Generates full team analytics view" } ], "body": "Performance Review Engine\n\nYour AI-powered performance management system. Write reviews that develop people, not just evaluate them. From self-assessments to 360° feedback to calibration — complete frameworks for every review cycle.\n\nQuick Start\n\nTell your agent:\n\n\"Write a performance review for [name] — they exceeded on delivery but need to improve communication\"\n\"Help me write my self-assessment for H2 2025\"\n\"Run a 360° feedback collection for my team of 6\"\n\"Prepare calibration notes for my 4 direct reports\"\n1. Review Cycle Setup\nCycle Configuration Template\ncycle:\n name: \"H2 2025 Performance Review\"\n period: \"2025-07-01 to 2025-12-31\"\n type: annual | semi-annual | quarterly\n timeline:\n self_assessment_due: \"2026-01-10\"\n peer_feedback_due: \"2026-01-17\"\n manager_draft_due: \"2026-01-24\"\n calibration_session: \"2026-01-28\"\n delivery_window: \"2026-01-29 to 2026-02-07\"\n participants:\n - name: \"\"\n role: \"\"\n level: \"\"\n tenure_months: 0\n previous_rating: \"\"\n peer_reviewers: []\n skip_level_reviewer: \"\"\n rating_scale:\n 1: \"Does Not Meet Expectations\"\n 2: \"Partially Meets Expectations\"\n 3: \"Meets Expectations\"\n 4: \"Exceeds Expectations\"\n 5: \"Significantly Exceeds Expectations\"\n competencies:\n - name: \"Delivery & Execution\"\n weight: 30\n - name: \"Technical/Functional Expertise\"\n weight: 25\n - name: \"Communication & Collaboration\"\n weight: 20\n - name: \"Leadership & Influence\"\n weight: 15\n - name: \"Growth & Development\"\n weight: 10\n\nRating Distribution Guidelines\nRating\tTarget %\tDescription\n5 - Significantly Exceeds\t5-10%\tTransformational impact, raises the bar for everyone\n4 - Exceeds\t20-25%\tConsistently above expectations, visible impact\n3 - Meets\t50-60%\tSolid, reliable performer at level\n2 - Partially Meets\t10-15%\tGaps in key areas, needs focused improvement\n1 - Does Not Meet\t0-5%\tSerious performance concerns, PIP candidate\n\nForced distribution warning: These are guidelines, not quotas. If a team genuinely has 80% high performers, the distribution should reflect reality. Forcing bell curves creates distrust.\n\n2. Self-Assessment Framework\nSTAR-I Method (Situation → Task → Action → Result → Impact)\n\nGuide employees to write self-assessments that actually demonstrate value:\n\n### Achievement: [Title]\n\n**Situation:** What was the context or challenge?\n**Task:** What was your specific responsibility?\n**Action:** What did you do? (Be specific — tools, approaches, decisions)\n**Result:** What was the measurable outcome?\n**Impact:** How did this affect the team/org/company beyond the immediate result?\n\n**Competency alignment:** [Which competency does this demonstrate?]\n**Evidence:** [Links, metrics, Slack messages, PRs, customer feedback]\n\nSelf-Assessment Prompts by Competency\n\nDelivery & Execution:\n\nWhat were your top 3-5 deliverables this period?\nWhich projects were on time/budget? Which weren't, and why?\nHow did you handle blockers or scope changes?\nWhat did you ship that you're most proud of?\n\nTechnical/Functional Expertise:\n\nWhat new skills or knowledge did you develop?\nWhere did you serve as the go-to expert?\nWhat technical decisions did you make and what was the outcome?\nHow did you stay current in your field?\n\nCommunication & Collaboration:\n\nHow did you contribute to team effectiveness?\nGive an example of resolving a disagreement productively\nHow did you share knowledge with others?\nWhat cross-functional work did you do?\n\nLeadership & Influence:\n\nHow did you influence outcomes beyond your direct responsibilities?\nDid you mentor or develop others? How?\nWhat initiatives did you drive or champion?\nHow did you contribute to team culture?\n\nGrowth & Development:\n\nWhat feedback did you receive and act on?\nWhat's your biggest area of growth this period?\nWhere do you still want to improve?\nWhat are your goals for next period?\nSelf-Assessment Quality Checklist\n Includes 5-8 concrete achievements with metrics\n Uses STAR-I format (not just \"I did X\")\n Covers all competency areas, not just delivery\n Acknowledges at least 1-2 growth areas honestly\n References specific feedback received and actions taken\n Includes forward-looking goals\n Avoids vague language (\"helped with,\" \"was involved in\")\n Links to evidence where possible\n Appropriate length (1-2 pages, not 10)\n Written in first person, professional but human tone\n3. Manager Review Writing\nThe OBSERVE Framework\n\nStructure every review around:\n\nO — Outcomes delivered: What did they ship/achieve? Metrics and evidence. B — Behaviors demonstrated: HOW they worked, not just what they produced. S — Strengths to leverage: Their superpower — what should they do MORE of? E — Edges to develop: Growth areas framed as opportunities, not failures. R — Relationships & impact: How they affected team dynamics and culture. V — Vision forward: Clear expectations and development plan for next period. E — Evidence cited: Every claim backed by specific examples.\n\nWriting Rules\n\nSpecific > Vague\n\n❌ \"Great job this quarter\"\n✅ \"Led the API migration affecting 12 services, completing 2 weeks ahead of schedule with zero customer-facing incidents\"\n\nBehavior > Trait\n\n❌ \"Is a natural leader\"\n✅ \"Organized weekly knowledge-sharing sessions that improved team velocity by 15% and reduced onboarding time for 3 new hires\"\n\nPattern > Incident\n\n❌ \"Missed the Q3 deadline\"\n✅ \"Delivery timelines were missed on 3 of 5 projects, consistently by 1-2 weeks, suggesting estimation needs improvement\"\n\nForward > Backward\n\n❌ \"Failed to communicate effectively\"\n✅ \"Strengthening stakeholder communication — specifically proactive status updates — would multiply the impact of their strong technical work\"\n\nBalanced always\n\nEven top performers need development feedback\nEven struggling performers have strengths to acknowledge\nTarget ratio: 60% strengths / 40% development (adjust by rating)\nReview Templates by Rating\nRating 5 — Significantly Exceeds\n## Performance Review: [Name] — H2 2025\n**Rating: Significantly Exceeds Expectations (5/5)**\n\n### Summary\n[Name] delivered exceptional results this period, consistently operating above their current level. Their impact extended well beyond their role, influencing [team/org/company] outcomes in measurable ways.\n\n### Key Achievements\n1. **[Achievement]** — [STAR-I summary with metrics]\n2. **[Achievement]** — [STAR-I summary with metrics]\n3. **[Achievement]** — [STAR-I summary with metrics]\n\n### Competency Assessment\n| Competency | Rating | Evidence |\n|-----------|--------|----------|\n| Delivery & Execution | 5 | [Specific examples] |\n| Technical Expertise | [X] | [Specific examples] |\n| Communication | [X] | [Specific examples] |\n| Leadership | [X] | [Specific examples] |\n| Growth | [X] | [Specific examples] |\n\n### Strengths to Leverage\n- [Strength 1] — this is a differentiator that should be amplified\n- [Strength 2] — consider giving them a platform to share this more broadly\n\n### Development Opportunities\nEven at this exceptional level, continued growth in [area] would unlock [next-level impact]. Specifically:\n- [Development area with actionable suggestion]\n- [Stretch assignment or learning recommendation]\n\n### Forward Look\n[Name] is ready for [promotion/expanded scope/leadership opportunity]. Recommended next steps: [specific action].\n\nRating 3 — Meets Expectations\n## Performance Review: [Name] — H2 2025\n**Rating: Meets Expectations (3/5)**\n\n### Summary\n[Name] delivered solid, reliable work this period, meeting the expectations of their role. They are a dependable contributor who [key positive theme].\n\n### Key Achievements\n1. **[Achievement]** — [Evidence]\n2. **[Achievement]** — [Evidence]\n3. **[Achievement]** — [Evidence]\n\n### Competency Assessment\n[Same table format]\n\n### Strengths\n- [Strength 1 with evidence]\n- [Strength 2 with evidence]\n\n### Development Areas\nTo move from \"meets\" to \"exceeds,\" [Name] should focus on:\n1. **[Area]** — Currently [current state]. The gap is [specific gap]. To close it: [actionable steps].\n2. **[Area]** — [Same structure]\n\n### Forward Look\nGoals for next period:\n1. [Measurable goal tied to development area]\n2. [Stretch goal that would demonstrate growth]\n3. [Continuation goal building on strengths]\n\nRating 1-2 — Below Expectations\n## Performance Review: [Name] — H2 2025\n**Rating: [Partially Meets / Does Not Meet] Expectations ([1-2]/5)**\n\n### Summary\n[Name] struggled to meet expectations in key areas this period. While [acknowledge any positives], significant gaps in [areas] need to be addressed.\n\n### Performance Gaps\n1. **[Gap]** — Expected: [what was expected]. Actual: [what happened]. Impact: [business impact]. Examples: [2-3 specific instances].\n2. **[Gap]** — [Same structure]\n\n### What Was Done Well\n- [Genuine positive — never skip this section]\n\n### Context Considered\n- [Any mitigating factors: reorg, unclear expectations, personal circumstances]\n- [Whether support/coaching was provided and when]\n\n### Improvement Plan\n| Area | Current State | Target State | Actions | Timeline | Support Needed |\n|------|--------------|-------------|---------|----------|----------------|\n| [Gap 1] | [Specific] | [Specific] | [Steps] | [Date] | [Resources] |\n| [Gap 2] | [Specific] | [Specific] | [Steps] | [Date] | [Resources] |\n\n### Consequences\nIf improvement to [specific measurable standard] is not demonstrated by [date]:\n- [Next step: PIP / role change / separation]\n\n### Check-in Schedule\n- Weekly 1:1s focused on [areas]\n- 30-day checkpoint: [date]\n- 60-day checkpoint: [date]\n- Final assessment: [date]\n\n4. 360° Feedback System\nPeer Feedback Request Template\nHi [Peer Name],\n\nYou're invited to provide feedback on [Employee Name] for our [H2 2025] review cycle.\n\nPlease share your observations (10-15 min, ~200-400 words total):\n\n1. **What does [Name] do well?** (Think: specific projects, behaviors, impact on you/the team)\n2. **What could [Name] improve?** (Think: what would make them even more effective?)\n3. **How would you describe working with [Name]?** (Collaboration style, communication, reliability)\n4. **One thing [Name] should keep doing:** ___\n5. **One thing [Name] should start or do more of:** ___\n\nYour feedback will be anonymized and synthesized — [Name] will not see your individual responses verbatim.\n\nDue by: [Date]\n\nFeedback Synthesis Method\n\nWhen combining multiple peer reviews:\n\nIdentify themes — What do 2+ people mention? Those are patterns, not noise.\nWeight by proximity — Feedback from close collaborators > occasional contacts.\nSeparate fact from feeling — \"Missed 3 deadlines\" is fact. \"Seems disengaged\" is perception (still valuable, but frame differently).\nPreserve outlier insights — If one person noticed something unique, it may still be valuable. Include as \"additionally noted.\"\nSynthesis Template\n### 360° Feedback Summary for [Name]\n\n**Respondents:** [N] peers, [N] cross-functional, [N] skip-level\n\n**Consistent Strengths (mentioned by 2+ reviewers):**\n- [Theme] — \"[Representative quote]\" (paraphrased from [N] responses)\n- [Theme] — \"[Representative quote]\"\n\n**Consistent Development Areas:**\n- [Theme] — \"[Representative quote]\"\n- [Theme] — \"[Representative quote]\"\n\n**Notable Individual Observations:**\n- [Unique insight worth including]\n\n**Overall Sentiment:** [Positive / Mixed / Concerning]\n**Collaboration Rating (aggregated):** [Strong / Solid / Needs Improvement]\n\n5. Calibration Session\nPre-Calibration Prep\n\nFor each direct report, prepare:\n\ncalibration_card:\n name: \"\"\n current_level: \"\"\n tenure: \"\"\n previous_rating: \"\"\n proposed_rating: \"\"\n rating_justification: \"\" # 2-3 sentences max\n top_achievement: \"\"\n biggest_gap: \"\"\n promotion_candidate: yes | no | not_yet\n flight_risk: low | medium | high\n key_question: \"\" # What you want the calibration group to weigh in on\n\nCalibration Discussion Framework\n\nRound 1 — Present (2 min per person)\n\nManager presents: proposed rating, top achievement, biggest gap\nNo debate yet — just laying out the landscape\n\nRound 2 — Calibrate (5 min per person where needed)\n\nFocus on: rating 4s and 5s (are they truly exceptional?), rating 1s and 2s (is this fair?), any rating that changed from last cycle\nAsk: \"Would this person get the same rating on another team?\"\nAsk: \"Is this rating consistent with [comparable person]?\"\n\nRound 3 — Decide\n\nFinalize ratings\nFlag anyone who needs skip-level review\nIdentify promotion candidates\nIdentify flight risks needing retention action\nCalibration Bias Checklist\n\nBefore finalizing, check for:\n\n Recency bias — Are you over-weighting the last month vs. the full period?\n Halo/horns effect — Is one great/bad thing coloring the entire review?\n Similarity bias — Are you rating people like you higher?\n Central tendency — Are you avoiding extreme ratings when they're warranted?\n Leniency/strictness — Is your distribution shifted vs. the org?\n Attribution error — Are you blaming the person for systemic issues?\n Contrast effect — Are you comparing to the previous person reviewed rather than the standard?\n6. Review Delivery Conversation\nConversation Structure (45-60 min)\n\nOpening (5 min)\n\nSet the tone: \"This is a two-way conversation, not a verdict\"\nShare the rating upfront — don't make them wait\n\nAchievements (10 min)\n\nWalk through top 3-5 achievements\nLet them add context or achievements you missed\nBe genuinely appreciative — this isn't just preamble to criticism\n\nDevelopment (15 min)\n\nPresent 1-2 development areas (not 10)\nUse the pattern: \"I've observed [specific behavior] in [specific situations]. The impact was [what happened]. What I'd love to see is [desired behavior].\"\nAsk: \"Does this resonate? What's your perspective?\"\nListen. Actually listen.\n\n360° Themes (5 min)\n\nShare synthesized peer feedback\nHighlight: \"Your colleagues really value [X]\"\nDevelopment: \"A theme that came up was [Y] — thoughts?\"\n\nGoals & Development Plan (15 min)\n\nCo-create 3-5 goals for next period\nAt least 1 development goal, not just delivery goals\nIdentify specific actions, resources, support needed\nAgree on check-in cadence\n\nClose (5 min)\n\nSummarize key takeaways\nAsk: \"What do you need from me to be successful?\"\nEnd on forward-looking, supportive note\nDifficult Conversation Scripts\n\nFor underperformers: \"I want to be direct with you because I respect you and your potential here. Your performance this period was below what we need in [specific area]. Here's what I've observed... I want to work with you on a plan to get back on track. Are you willing to commit to that?\"\n\nFor strong performers who didn't get promoted: \"Your work this period was excellent — [specific examples]. The reason you're rated [X] rather than promoted is [specific gap]. Here's what I think it would take: [concrete steps]. I'm committed to supporting you in getting there.\"\n\nFor someone who disagrees with their rating: \"I hear you, and I want to understand your perspective. Can you walk me through the specific areas where you see it differently? ... I appreciate you sharing that. Here's how I weighed [factors]. [Either: Let me take this back and reconsider / I understand the disagreement, but here's why the rating stands].\"\n\n7. Development Planning\nDevelopment Plan Template\ndevelopment_plan:\n employee: \"\"\n manager: \"\"\n period: \"H1 2026\"\n review_date: \"\"\n \n strengths_to_leverage:\n - strength: \"\"\n leverage_action: \"\" # How to use this more\n \n development_areas:\n - area: \"\"\n current_state: \"\"\n target_state: \"\"\n actions:\n - type: \"on_the_job\" # 70% of development\n description: \"\"\n timeline: \"\"\n - type: \"learning\" # 20% — coaching, mentoring, peer learning\n description: \"\"\n timeline: \"\"\n - type: \"formal\" # 10% — courses, certifications, conferences\n description: \"\"\n timeline: \"\"\n success_metrics: \"\"\n check_in_dates: []\n \n career_goals:\n short_term: \"\" # 6-12 months\n medium_term: \"\" # 1-3 years\n long_term: \"\" # 3-5 years\n \n support_needed:\n from_manager: \"\"\n from_org: \"\"\n budget_required: \"\"\n\nThe 70-20-10 Development Mix\nType\t%\tExamples\nOn-the-job\t70%\tStretch assignments, new projects, leading initiatives, cross-functional work, shadowing\nSocial learning\t20%\tMentoring, coaching, peer feedback, communities of practice, teaching others\nFormal learning\t10%\tCourses, certifications, conferences, books, structured programs\n\nCommon mistake: Over-indexing on formal learning (sending someone to a course) when on-the-job stretch would be 5x more effective.\n\n8. Continuous Feedback (Between Reviews)\n1:1 Performance Check-in Template (Monthly)\n## Monthly Check-in: [Name] — [Month Year]\n\n### Progress on Goals\n| Goal | Status | Notes |\n|------|--------|-------|\n| [Goal 1] | 🟢 On track / 🟡 At risk / 🔴 Off track | [Brief update] |\n\n### Recent Wins\n- [What went well this month]\n\n### Challenges\n- [What's been difficult]\n\n### Feedback Exchange\n- **Manager → Employee:** [One specific piece of feedback]\n- **Employee → Manager:** [Ask: \"What can I do differently to support you?\"]\n\n### Action Items\n- [ ] [Action] — Owner: [who] — By: [date]\n\n### Overall Pulse: 😊 Great / 😐 Fine / 😟 Struggling\n\nReal-Time Feedback Formula (SBI)\n\nSituation: \"In yesterday's client presentation...\" Behavior: \"...you handled the pricing objection by reframing around ROI rather than discounting...\" Impact: \"...which kept us at full price and the client visibly shifted from skeptical to interested.\"\n\nDeliver within 48 hours. Positive feedback publicly (if they're comfortable). Constructive feedback privately. Always.\n\n9. Scoring & Analytics\nIndividual Performance Score (0-100)\nScore = Σ (competency_rating × competency_weight) × 20\n\nExample:\nDelivery (4/5 × 30%) + Technical (3/5 × 25%) + Communication (4/5 × 20%) \n+ Leadership (3/5 × 15%) + Growth (4/5 × 10%)\n= (1.20 + 0.75 + 0.80 + 0.45 + 0.40) = 3.60 / 5 = 72/100\n\nTeam Health Dashboard\n\nTrack quarterly:\n\n## Team Performance Dashboard — Q4 2025\n\n**Team size:** [N]\n**Rating distribution:** ⭐5: [N] | ⭐4: [N] | ⭐3: [N] | ⭐2: [N] | ⭐1: [N]\n**Average score:** [X]/100\n**vs. last period:** [↑/↓ X points]\n\n**Promotion candidates:** [Names]\n**Flight risks:** [Names + risk level]\n**PIP/coaching:** [Names]\n\n**Top team strengths:** [Competencies scoring highest]\n**Team gaps:** [Competencies scoring lowest]\n**Development budget used:** [X]% of [Y] allocated\n\n**Engagement signals:**\n- Voluntary turnover: [X]%\n- Internal mobility: [X] transfers/promotions\n- 1:1 completion rate: [X]%\n- Goal completion rate: [X]%\n\n10. Edge Cases & Advanced Scenarios\nNew Hire (< 6 months)\nEvaluate against onboarding milestones, not full role expectations\nWeight learning speed and cultural integration higher\nCompare to \"expected ramp\" not to tenured peers\nRating floor of 3 unless genuine performance issues (distinguish slow ramp from bad fit)\nRole Change Mid-Cycle\nSplit the review: first half in old role, second half in new\nWeight the new role performance more heavily (it's the forward-looking signal)\nAcknowledge the transition tax — expect a temporary dip\nRemote/Hybrid Considerations\nEvaluate output and impact, not visibility or hours\nSeek feedback from async collaborators, not just people in the office\nWatch for proximity bias — don't rate in-office people higher by default\nHigh Performer Wanting to Leave\nHave the conversation: \"I value you and want to understand what would make you want to stay\"\nDon't inflate the rating as retention — it sets a precedent\nDocument the conversation and retention actions taken\nInherited Team Member\nGet context from previous manager (ask for their calibration card)\nBe transparent: \"I'm still building my understanding of your work\"\nLean more on peer feedback and objective metrics\nDon't default to \"meets\" because you don't know — do the research\nManager Reviewing Someone They Don't Like\nStick to observable behaviors and measurable outcomes\nHave a peer manager gut-check your review for bias\nAsk yourself: \"If my favorite team member did exactly this, what would I rate them?\"\n11. Legal & Compliance Notes\n\nDocumentation rules:\n\nKeep all review documents for minimum 3 years (7 in regulated industries)\nFeedback must reference specific, observable behaviors — not personality traits\nNever reference protected characteristics (age, gender, disability, etc.)\nPIP documentation should be reviewed by HR/legal before delivery\nEmployee should sign acknowledging receipt (not agreement)\n\nPhrases to avoid:\n\n\"Cultural fit\" (can mask bias) → Use \"collaboration effectiveness\"\n\"Aggressive\" (gendered connotation) → Use \"assertive\" or \"direct\"\n\"Young/energetic\" → Use specific behaviors\n\"Not a team player\" → Cite specific collaboration gaps with examples\nCommands Reference\nCommand\tWhat it does\n\"Start review cycle for [team]\"\tCreates cycle config with timeline\n\"Write self-assessment for [achievements]\"\tGenerates STAR-I formatted self-review\n\"Write review for [name] — rating [X]\"\tFull manager review using OBSERVE framework\n\"Collect 360 feedback for [name]\"\tGenerates peer feedback requests\n\"Synthesize feedback from [sources]\"\tCombines multiple inputs into themes\n\"Prepare calibration for [team]\"\tCreates calibration cards for all reports\n\"Create development plan for [name]\"\tBuilds 70-20-10 development plan\n\"Monthly check-in for [name]\"\tGenerates 1:1 template with goal tracking\n\"Give feedback on [situation]\"\tFormats using SBI framework\n\"Score [name] across competencies\"\tCalculates weighted performance score\n\"Team health dashboard\"\tGenerates full team analytics view" }, "trust": { "sourceLabel": "tencent", "provenanceUrl": "https://clawhub.ai/1kalin/afrexai-performance-review", "publisherUrl": "https://clawhub.ai/1kalin/afrexai-performance-review", "owner": "1kalin", "version": "1.1.0", "license": null, "verificationStatus": "Indexed source record" }, "links": { "detailUrl": "https://openagent3.xyz/skills/afrexai-performance-review", "downloadUrl": "https://openagent3.xyz/downloads/afrexai-performance-review", "agentUrl": "https://openagent3.xyz/skills/afrexai-performance-review/agent", "manifestUrl": "https://openagent3.xyz/skills/afrexai-performance-review/agent.json", "briefUrl": "https://openagent3.xyz/skills/afrexai-performance-review/agent.md" } }