Turn scattered feedback into a fair review
Situation Prepare a review without flattening mixed evidence
You supply
- Role expectations
- Dated observations
- Feedback sources
- Review period
- Employee context they have chosen to share
- Relationship and conversation context
- Desired tone or language to avoid
It asks for
- Build an evidence table: dated observation, role expectation, observed impact, source, and what remains interpretation.
- Write a balanced review of no more than 250 words.
- Propose two development priorities.
- Finish with facts the reviewer should verify and questions to invite the employee's perspective.
Guardrails
- Limits
- Do not infer personality, health, intent, or a rating. Separate recent events from the whole review period. Keep unsupported praise and criticism out.
- Final check
- Every evaluative sentence traces to an observation; contradictory examples remain visible.
- Follow-up
- Rewrite the weakest-supported paragraph as a question to discuss rather than a conclusion.
Show the full prompt text
Paste this into your AI tool and fill in each bracket with your own context.
Help me turn scattered feedback into a fair review. My context: Role expectations: [fill in, or write "unknown"] Dated observations: [fill in, or write "unknown"] Feedback sources: [fill in, or write "unknown"] Review period: [fill in, or write "unknown"] Employee context they have chosen to share: [fill in, or write "unknown"] Relationship and conversation context: [fill in, or write "unknown"] Desired tone or language to avoid: [fill in, or write "unknown"] What I need: 1. Build an evidence table: dated observation, role expectation, observed impact, source, and what remains interpretation. Keep contradictory observations in separate rows. 2. Write a balanced review of no more than 250 words. Describe behavior and results, including improvement over time; avoid personality labels. 3. Propose two development priorities. For each, name a practice opportunity, support needed, and an observable sign of progress; label these proposed. 4. Finish with facts the reviewer should verify and questions to invite the employee's perspective. Do not assign a rating without a supplied rating framework and adequate evidence. Keep these limits: Do not infer personality, health, intent, or a rating. Separate recent events from the whole review period. Keep unsupported praise and criticism out. Use observable behavior and the person's stated perspective. Keep feedback specific enough to discuss, and proposals separate from agreed expectations. Do not infer personal traits or make employment decisions. Use only supplied facts; keep unknowns explicit. If a missing fact prevents a useful answer, ask up to two focused questions before drafting. Final check: Every evaluative sentence traces to an observation; contradictory examples remain visible.