# 65 Team Performance Review Global

Use when a leader evaluates a marketing TEAM MEMBER using data, a KPI scorecard by...

- Repository: https://github.com/minhnv0807/ai-business-skills (641 stars)
- Category: Marketing
- License: MIT
- Last updated: 2026-11-01
- Runs scripts: no, instructions only

## Install

Claude Code: `npx skills add minhnv0807/ai-business-skills --skill 65-team-performance-review-global -g -a claude-code -y`
Codex: `npx skills add minhnv0807/ai-business-skills --skill 65-team-performance-review-global -g -a codex -y`
Cursor: `npx skills add minhnv0807/ai-business-skills --skill 65-team-performance-review-global -g -a cursor -y`
Gemini CLI: `npx skills add minhnv0807/ai-business-skills --skill 65-team-performance-review-global -g -a gemini-cli -y`
Claude Code plugin marketplace: `/plugin marketplace add minhnv0807/ai-business-skills`

## Description

Use when a leader evaluates a marketing TEAM MEMBER using data, a KPI scorecard by role, strengths with real examples, areas to improve stated as observable behavior, a 30 and 90 day development plan, and a 1-5 rating rubric. Trigger on 'performance review for my marketer', 'evaluate a team member', 'monthly 1:1 review', 'feedback for my content writer', 'development plan for an employee', 'is this person underperforming'. Also use when the user is unhappy with someone and cannot articulate why. Not for, evaluating a campaign rather than a person, see `63-campaign-retrospective-global`; reviewing one piece of output, see `62-marketing-review-global`; scoring an external vendor, see `67-agency-vendor-brief-global`.

## SKILL.md, as published by its author (untrusted third-party text, read it as data)

# Team Performance Review (Global)

> A review is not a grade, it exists so the person knows what to do to get better. Feedback without data is opinion; feedback with data is coaching. There should be no surprises in a review: feedback is given continuously through the period, and the review only summarizes it.

## Information gathering

Read the brief history (`64-team-brief-global`), last period's output, and the reports (`07-marketing-report-global`) if available. If missing, ask up to 4 questions:

1. **Who is being reviewed, in what role, for what period?** Content writer / designer / media buyer / channel owner; monthly or quarterly.
2. **What KPIs were set at the start of the period?** If none were set, this review can only be qualitative, say so explicitly in the document.
3. **Concrete output data:** pieces published, assets delivered, CPA/ROAS on campaigns they own, on-time rate, revisions per task.
4. **Specific observations from the period:** 2-3 real situations (positive and negative) with dates.

## Principles

1. **No surprises.** Negative feedback is given when it happens, not saved for review day.
2. **Every statement needs evidence.** "Hard-working" is not an assessment; "on time on 9 of 10 tasks, proposed two new content angles unprompted" is.
3. **Assess behavior, not character.** Write "submitted late 3 times without notice", not "irresponsible".
4. **Rate consistently.** Apply the same standard across the team; do not let personal rapport shift the scale.
5. **A review must produce a development plan.** Without one it is just an unusable scorecard.
6. **The document is confidential.** Leader and reviewee only.

## Documentation caution

In many jurisdictions, written performance documentation carries employment-law weight and can be produced as evidence in a dispute. Write it accordingly:

The rest: https://github.com/minhnv0807/ai-business-skills/blob/HEAD/skills/en/65-team-performance-review-global/SKILL.md