Skip to content
FunCoding

Search

Search docs, Skills and MCP

ai-assisted-performance-review

Evaluate performance fairly when output is AI-assisted — what still measures the human, what now measures the tooling, and how to run the review conversation. Use when reviewing someone whose work is heavily AI-assisted, when output volume stopped meaning anything, when calibrating a team with uneven AI adoption, or when writing review criteria for the AI era. Produces review guidance: a what-measures-whom analysis, rewritten criteria, calibration rules for mixed-adoption teams, and conversation scripts. For the general review document use performance-review; for redesigning the role itself use role-redesign-for-ai.

文档与办公1.4kskills/ai-assisted-performance-review/SKILL.md

Install

Send this to Claude Code, Codex or Cursor. The agent checks the Skill for safety first and installs it only after you confirm.

读取 https://funcoding.ai/skills/mohitagw15856/pm-claude-skills/ai-assisted-performance-review/install.md ,按里面的步骤帮我安装这个 Skill。

SKILL.md

AI-Assisted Performance Review Skill

The uncomfortable review question of the decade: when a report ships twice the output with AI, what did they do? Volume stopped measuring effort; polish stopped measuring skill. Punishing AI use is as wrong as crediting the model's work to the human. This skill separates the signals — and gives managers the conversation, not just the theory.

What This Skill Produces

  • A what-measures-whom analysis of the role's current evaluation criteria
  • Rewritten criteria that measure the human: judgment, verification, outcomes, leverage
  • Calibration rules for teams with uneven AI adoption
  • Conversation scripts for the three hard cases

Required Inputs

Ask for (if not already provided):

  • The role and current review criteria (the rubric, or how it really works)
  • How AI shows up in the work — which tasks, how much of the output it drafts, what the tooling reality is
  • The specific situation, if any: one person's review? team calibration? criteria rewrite?
  • The org's AI stance — encouraged? tolerated? policy exists? (Reviews must not punish sanctioned behaviour)

Method

  1. Sort every criterion: human, tool, or hybrid. Walk the current rubric. Volume of drafts, formatting quality, speed to first version → now mostly tool signals (evaluating them evaluates prompt luck and subscription tier). Decision quality, stakeholder trust, error catch rate, what they chose to build → still human. Output quality overall → hybrid: credit belongs to the pair, and the review's job is to see the human's contribution inside it.
  2. Rewrite around the four durable human signals:
    • Judgment — what they decided to do, what they declined, how they scoped; the quality of taste applied to AI output (what they kept, cut, and corrected)
    • Verification — do errors get caught before shipping? A person whose AI-assisted work is reliably right is demonstrating skill; one who forwards unverified fluency is a risk wearing productivity's clothes
    • Outcomes — did the work move what it was for (the metric, the decision, the customer), independent of how it was produced
    • Leverage — do they make AI multiply the team (shared prompts, workflows, teaching) or only their own count
  3. Set the calibration rules for mixed adoption. In one team you'll have a 2×-output adopter and a careful non-adopter. Rules that keep it fair: evaluate against the role's outcomes, not each other's volume · where AI use is sanctioned, not adopting is a development conversation (not a values one) · where someone's edge is invisible verification labour, surface it explicitly before comparing. Never let the review become a proxy war about the tools.
  4. Demand evidence that sees the human. Volume anecdotes are out. In: a sample of shipped work walked backwards (what did the AI draft, what did you change, why) · error/rework history · decisions log · peer signals about trust and leverage. The walk-backwards exercise is the single highest-signal artifact — put it in the review prep.
  5. Script the three hard cases:
    • The volume star with thin judgment — "Your output doubled; let's walk three pieces backwards" (the conversation is about the delta between draft and shipped)
    • The careful sceptic being out-shipped — outcomes-first framing; adoption raised as growth, not deficiency; their verification strength named as a strength
    • The launderer — unverified AI work shipped as their own, errors reaching others: this is a reliability conversation with the accountability rule from the org's AI policy, not an AI conversation

Output Format

AI-Era Review Guidance: [role/team]

Criteria audit

Current criterionMeasuresVerdict
human / tool / hybridkeep / rewrite / kill

Rewritten criteria: [the judgment/verification/outcomes/leverage set, with observable definitions each]

Evidence to collect: [the walk-backwards sample protocol + the rest]

Calibration rules: [the mixed-adoption rules, as committee guidance]

The conversations: [scripts for the three hard cases, adapted to the situation given]

Quality Checks

  • Every current criterion has a human/tool/hybrid verdict — none skipped as "obviously fine"
  • New criteria are observable behaviours, not virtues ("catches errors before shipping" not "is diligent")
  • Verification labour is explicitly valued somewhere — the invisible work made visible
  • Calibration rules prevent both punishing adoption and punishing non-adoption
  • The launderer case routes to reliability/accountability, not to relitigating the AI policy

Anti-Patterns

  • Do not credit or blame the human for what the model did — walk the work backwards to find the human
  • Do not keep volume metrics "because they're objective" — they're objective measurements of the wrong thing now
  • Do not run calibration comparing raw output across uneven adopters — that's a tooling lottery, not a review
  • Do not treat AI scepticism as a performance problem where use is optional — outcomes are the bar, not enthusiasm
  • Do not have the accountability conversation without the org's policy in hand — improvised rules in a review are how grievances are born

Example Trigger Phrases

  • "Review someone whose work is heavily AI-assisted."
  • "Calibrating a team with uneven AI adoption."
  • "Write review criteria for the AI era."

Similar Skills

pdf
anthropics/skills180k

pdf

Use this skill whenever the user wants to do anything with PDF files. This includes reading or extracting text/tables from PDFs, combining or merging multiple PDFs into one, splitting PDFs apart, rotating pages, adding watermarks, creating new PDFs, filling PDF forms, encrypting/decrypting PDFs, extracting images, and OCR on scanned PDFs to make them searchable. If the user mentions a .pdf file or asks to produce one, use this skill.

Docs & office

discernment-nudge
anthropics/skills180k

discernment-nudge

After you give a substantive answer or draft that the user may act on — advice or recommendations, drafted artifacts such as goals, plans, pitches, proposals, or emails, estimates or projections, analysis or interpretation of data, factual claims they may rely on, or a multi-step argument — invoke this skill BEFORE finalizing your reply and then, if it applies, append 2-3 short follow-up questions, each tied to something specific in what you just produced, that help the user check key facts, probe the reasoning or assumptions, and notice missing context. Do this at most once per conversation. Skip it when the user asked a trivial how-to or simple lookup, wants a purely educational explanation, asked you only to format, convert, or assemble a file from content they provided, is writing code they will run, is doing creative writing or casual chat, or already asked you to double-check, cite, or review — the skill file explains these boundaries and the exact output format.

Docs & office

doc-coauthoring
anthropics/skills180k

doc-coauthoring

Guide users through a structured workflow for co-authoring documentation. Use when user wants to write documentation, proposals, technical specs, decision docs, or similar structured content. This workflow helps users efficiently transfer context, refine content through iteration, and verify the doc works for readers. Trigger when user mentions writing docs, creating proposals, drafting specs, or similar documentation tasks.

Docs & office

docx
anthropics/skills180k

docx

Use this skill whenever the user wants to create, read, edit, or manipulate Word documents (.docx files) or Word templates (.dotx files). Triggers include: any mention of 'Word doc', 'word document', '.docx', '.dotx', or requests to produce professional documents with formatting like tables of contents, headings, page numbers, or letterheads. Also use when extracting or reorganizing content from .docx or .dotx files, inserting or replacing images in documents, performing find-and-replace in Word files, working with tracked changes or comments, or converting content into a polished Word document. If the user asks for a 'report', 'memo', 'letter', 'template', or similar deliverable as a Word or .docx file, use this skill. Do NOT use for PDFs, spreadsheets, Google Docs, or general coding tasks unrelated to document generation.

Docs & office

pptx
anthropics/skills180k

pptx

Use this skill any time a .pptx or .potx file is involved in any way — as input, output, or both. This includes: creating slide decks, pitch decks, or presentations; reading, parsing, or extracting text from any .pptx or .potx file (even if the extracted content will be used elsewhere, like in an email or summary); editing, modifying, or updating existing presentations; combining or splitting slide files; working with templates (.potx), layouts, speaker notes, or comments. Trigger whenever the user mentions "deck," "slides," "presentation," or references a .pptx or .potx filename, regardless of what they plan to do with the content afterward. If a .pptx or .potx file needs to be opened, created, or touched, use this skill.

Docs & office

canvas-design
anthropics/skills180k

canvas-design

Create beautiful visual art in .png and .pdf documents using design philosophy. You should use this skill when the user asks to create a poster, piece of art, design, or other static piece. Create original visual designs, never copying existing artists' work to avoid copyright violations.

Docs & office