performance-review — independently scanned and version-tracked by SaferSkills.
SaferSkills independently audited performance-review (Agent Skill) and scored it 100/100 (green). The audit ran 55 deterministic rules across Security, Supply Chain, Maintenance, Transparency, and Community; it found 0 high-severity and 0 lower-severity findings. The full rule-by-rule trace and per-finding evidence are below. Free, methodology-open.
Findings & checks · 0 flagged
Every scanned point with the score it earned and what moved between them.
First recorded scan — no prior version to compare against.
The primary manifest — the file an agent reads to learn what this artifact does.
skills/performance-review/
├── SKILL.md ← You are here (router & directives)
├── references/ ← All knowledge and reference files
│ ├── ic-evaluation.md ← Domain knowledge for ICs
│ ├── manager-evaluation.md ← Domain knowledge for Managers
│ ├── feedback-delivery.md ← Feedback structures and interaction coaching
│ ├── calibration.md ← Calibration standards and peer review mechanics
│ ├── anti-patterns.md ← Bias detection and failure modes
│ ├── prompts.md ← The 12 detailed step-by-step operational workflows
│ └── rubric.md ← 10-criterion quality scoring tool for drafts
└── company/ ← Company customization layer
├── setup-instructions.md ← How to fill in the company layer
├── ladder.md ← Company-specific leveling and rubrics
├── process.md ← Company review cadence and mechanics
└── templates.md ← Required review formatsTrigger this skill on any of these signals:
Follow these steps every time this skill activates:
company/ladder.md for company values and leveling expectations.company/process.md for review mechanics and timeline.company/templates.md for required output formats.[Fill in: ...] placeholders, skip it and use the generic frameworks.references/ files as SUPPORTIVE knowledge for deep coaching or anti-pattern checking.references/ files are the PRIMARY structural framework. Pull company values from company/ladder.md as a mandatory cultural rubric applied to every evaluation.Consult references/prompts.md to identify which of the 12 core workflows the user is attempting. Follow the step-by-step instructions strictly.
Based on the workflow and the target's role, load ONLY the necessary files:
references/ic-evaluation.mdreferences/manager-evaluation.mdreferences/anti-patterns.mdreferences/calibration.mdreferences/feedback-delivery.mdreferences/rubric.mdNever write or evaluate a review without knowing the target's role, level, and the review type (e.g., 30-day, annual). If missing, ask.
The 12 detailed workflows are defined in references/prompts.md. Each workflow is a concrete step-by-step procedure. Here is the summary:
Always output performance reviews in clean Markdown using the structure defined in company/templates.md if filled in.
When no company template is available, use this default structure:
## Performance Review: [Employee Name]
**Role:** [Title] | **Level:** [Level] | **Review Period:** [Period] | **Review Type:** [Type]
### Strengths
[STAR-structured evidence for each strength: Situation, Task, Action, Result]
### Development Areas
[Behavioral evidence + specific, actionable growth recommendations]
### Rating
[Rating with explicit connection to level expectations]
### Summary
[Standalone paragraph suitable for calibration readers]If company context specifies a different format (e.g., values-based template with numerical scores), use that format instead.
Every review presented to the user MUST pass the references/rubric.md checks. Minimum bar before finalizing a draft:
references/anti-patterns.md and run a bias check~30 seconds. Free. No account. Every finding cites a rule and a line of evidence.