Getting Copilot or Claude to draft a performance review that isn't a wall of adjectives

Background

Performance review season produces two kinds of bad writing: the manager who writes three sentences because they've run out of time, and the manager who asks an AI tool to "write a review for [name], they did really well this year" and gets back four paragraphs of confident, well-structured praise with nothing specific in it. The second one is worse, because it reads as finished. Nobody chases it up, and the employee is left with a review that sounds great and tells them nothing about what to keep doing.

The model isn't able to invent evidence it doesn't have - the problem is that the naive prompt doesn't give it any, so it fills the gap with plausible generic praise ("consistently exceeded expectations", "a real asset to the team") that could describe anyone. Ask it to write from a list of actual examples instead, and the adjectives disappear because they're not doing any work any more - the examples are.

The other failure mode is the opposite one: a review that reads as a list of complaints because that's what the manager's notes happened to contain, with nothing about what's working. Both directions are fixed the same way - feed the model a structure that forces balance, then real evidence to fill it.

Setup

The shape every template below follows:

• Role - a manager's own voice, not HR-department boilerplate.
• Context - what this specific review period covered and what it feeds into (a pay decision, a development plan, a promotion case).
• Inputs - your actual notes and examples, however rough.
• Task - a fixed structure that has to be filled from the inputs, not invented.
• Constraints - no unsupported claims, no adjective without an example attached.

The standard mid-year or annual review

You're helping a manager draft a performance review in their own voice,
from their real notes - not writing generic praise.

Context: this covers [PERIOD], for [ROLE/LEVEL], and feeds into
[A PAY DECISION / DEVELOPMENT PLAN / NO FORMAL OUTCOME].

Inputs:
- 3-5 specific things that went well, with what actually happened:
  [LIST - ROUGH NOTES ARE FINE]
- 1-3 things that didn't go well or need to improve, with what actually
  happened: [LIST]
- Any feedback from peers or other stakeholders: [PASTE OR SUMMARISE]
- What this person is aiming for next (a skill, a project, a level):
  [DESCRIBE]

Task: write the review in four parts - overall summary (2-3 sentences,
no adjectives without an example backing them), strengths (each one tied
to a specific example from my notes), areas to develop (framed as what to
do differently, not just what went wrong), and next-period focus.

Constraints: every strength or concern has to trace to something in my
inputs - if you think something's missing to make a fair review, ask me
for it rather than inventing an example. No sentence that could be pasted
into a review for a different person without changing a single word.

The "I've only got scraps of notes" version

For the review you're dreading because you didn't keep good notes all year - this makes that honest rather than papering over it:

You're helping me reconstruct a fair performance review from incomplete
notes, and being honest about the gaps rather than smoothing over them.

Inputs:
- Whatever notes, emails, or Slack/Teams messages I have from the period,
  pasted as-is: [PASTE]
- What I remember but didn't write down at the time: [LIST, MARK AS
  "FROM MEMORY, NOT CONTEMPORANEOUS"]

Task: pull out every concrete example you can find in what I've given you,
grouped by theme. Then tell me which parts of a normal review structure
(strengths, areas to develop, goals) you don't have enough material for,
so I know exactly where I need to go and ask a peer or check a project
tracker before I write anything.

Constraints: don't blend "from memory" items in as if they were
contemporaneous notes - keep them distinguishable so I know which claims
I could actually back up if asked.

The difficult conversation prep

For a review that includes a genuine performance concern, where the write-up itself isn't the hard part - saying it clearly and fairly is:

You're helping me prepare to deliver a difficult but fair piece of
feedback, in writing and for the conversation itself.

Inputs:
- The specific behaviour or outcome that's the concern, with dates/examples:
  [DESCRIBE]
- What's already been said about it before, if anything: [DESCRIBE OR "NOTHING
  FORMAL YET"]
- What change actually needs to happen, concretely: [DESCRIBE]

Task: a written summary for the review document (factual, no character
judgements, tied to impact not personality), plus 3-4 opening lines I
could actually say out loud to start the conversation without either
softening it into nothing or sounding like a formal warning if it isn't one.

Constraints: describe behaviour and impact, never motive or character
("missed the deadline three times" not "doesn't care about deadlines").
Flag if what I've described sounds like it should already be a formal
process (HR-involved) rather than a normal review conversation.