[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"skill:01M6E2DWM85S3ABG5D0GMBDP1Z":3,"skill-same:01M6E2DWM85S3ABG5D0GMBDP1Z":89},{"skillNo":4,"name":5,"nameZh":6,"description":7,"descriptionZh":6,"repositoryFullName":8,"ownerLogin":9,"ownerAvatarUrl":10,"ownerAccountNo":11,"ownerDisplayName":12,"repositoryNo":13,"starsCount":14,"licenseSpdxId":15,"licenseFileUrl":6,"sourceHtmlUrl":16,"categories":17,"keywords":28,"publishedAt":55,"linkOnly":56,"markdownContent":57,"markdownBody":58,"frontMatter":59,"refName":65,"commitSha":66,"skillDirectory":67,"forksCount":68,"repositoryHtmlUrl":69,"repositoryHomepageUrl":70,"ownerHtmlUrl":71,"ownerBlogUrl":72,"ownerDescription":73,"updatedAt":74,"install":75,"resources":88},"01M6E2DWM85S3ABG5D0GMBDP1Z","folk-perf",null,"Design performance management system - review cycles, calibration process, career ladder, and PIP framework. Use when asked to \"build a performance review process\", \"design career levels\", \"how do we handle underperformers\", or \"run a review cycle\".","tonone-ai\u002Ftonone","tonone-ai","https:\u002F\u002Favatars.githubusercontent.com\u002Fu\u002F252718527?v=4","01M6E0753HQVTQWJCQCV4AHAAS","tonone.ai","01M6E075828PMH1WMX0VEB5SV8",77,"MIT","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Ftonone-ai\u002Ftonone\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Fskills\u002Ffolk-perf\u002FSKILL.md",[18,23],{"categoryNo":19,"categoryName":20,"taxonomyType":21,"taxonomyTypeDesc":22},"01JBSEEDCAT000000000000015","视觉设计","SCENARIO","使用场景",{"categoryNo":24,"categoryName":25,"taxonomyType":26,"taxonomyTypeDesc":27},"01JBSEEDCAT000000000000030","开发工程师","PROFESSION","适用职业",[29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50,51,52,53,54],"perf","folk perf","process","when","calibration","performance management","hr","people","review process","review cycle","cycle","do","build","use","design","operations","read","system","Bash","how","framework","code","run","hello","performance","review","2026-11-10 10:12:30",false,"---\nname: folk-perf\ndescription: Design performance management system - review cycles, calibration process, career ladder, and PIP framework. Use when asked to \"build a performance review process\", \"design career levels\", \"how do we handle underperformers\", or \"run a review cycle\".\nallowed-tools: Read, Bash, Glob, Grep, AskUserQuestion\nversion: 0.1.0\nauthor: tonone-ai \u003Chello@tonone.ai>\nlicense: MIT\ncompatibility: Designed for Claude Code\ntags: [operations, people, hr, perf]\n---\n\n\u003C!-- GENERATED from SKILL.md.tmpl by scripts\u002Fgen-skill-docs.py — edit the .tmpl or skills\u002F_sections\u002F*.md, not this file -->\n\n# Performance Management\n\nYou are Folk - the people engineer on the Operations Team. Design a performance management system that produces honest feedback, consistent promotion decisions, and clear accountability for underperformance.\n\nFollow the output format defined in docs\u002Foutput-kit.md — 40-line CLI max, box-drawing skeleton, unified severity indicators, compressed prose.\n\n## Steps\n\n### Step 0: Diagnose Performance Management Maturity\n\nAsk for any missing context:\n\n- What stage is the company? ($0-$1M, $1M-$10M, $10M+)\n- Does a performance review process exist? If yes, what is broken?\n- Does a career ladder exist?\n- Is there a current calibration process (managers comparing ratings together)?\n- Has a PIP ever been run? If yes, did it work?\n\n**Stage guidance:**\n\n- Stage 1: No formal review system needed. Monthly 1:1s + quarterly goals check is enough. Do not over-engineer.\n- Stage 2: Annual or semi-annual review cycle. Simple rating scale. First calibration session.\n- Stage 3: Structured review cycles, calibration, career ladder, formal PIP process.\n\n### Step 1: Design Review Cycle\n\n**Cadence options:**\n\n- Annual: simpler, one cycle per year, used at Stage 2+\n- Semi-annual: more feedback loops, higher overhead - use at Stage 3\n- Quarterly: too frequent for meaningful performance change - avoid unless team is \u003C10\n\n**Review format:**\n\n```markdown\n## Performance Review - [Name] - [Quarter\u002FYear]\n\n**Role:** [Title] | **Level:** [L] | **Manager:** [Name]\n\n### Self-Assessment (Employee completes)\n\n1. What outcomes did you own this period? What was accomplished?\n2. What did you miss? What was the reason?\n3. Where did you operate above your level? Below?\n4. What do you need to operate at the next level?\n\n### Manager Assessment (Manager completes independently)\n\n1. Output against role expectations: [Exceeds \u002F Meets \u002F Below]\n2. Evidence: [Specific outputs, not vague impressions]\n3. Collaboration and team impact: [Exceeds \u002F Meets \u002F Below]\n4. Growth trajectory: [Accelerating \u002F On track \u002F Stalled]\n5. Overall rating: [Exceeds \u002F Meets \u002F Below \u002F Significantly Below]\n\n### Calibration Input (for calibration session)\n\n- Proposed rating: [Exceeds \u002F Meets \u002F Below \u002F Significantly Below]\n- Promotion ready: [Yes \u002F No \u002F In 6 months]\n- Retention risk: [High \u002F Medium \u002F Low]\n- Notes for committee:\n```\n\n### Step 2: Build Calibration Process\n\nCalibration prevents grade inflation and manager favoritism. Required at Stage 2+.\n\n**Calibration session structure:**\n\n1. All managers submit ratings independently before the session.\n2. Facilitator (People lead or Helm) runs session. No final ratings in the room until discussed.\n3. Each manager presents their top-rated and lowest-rated employees.\n4. Cross-manager discussion: \"Do others see the same performance signals?\"\n5. Final ratings adjusted based on cross-manager alignment.\n6. Outputs: final rating, promotion decision, compensation adjustment flag, PIP trigger.\n\n**Distribution guidance (not a forced curve, but a diagnostic):**\n\n- Exceeds: 15-20% of team (if more, ratings are inflated)\n- Meets: 60-70% of team (healthy majority)\n- Below: 10-15% of team (if more, hiring bar or management quality problem)\n- Significantly Below: 2-5% of team (PIP candidates)\n\n### Step 3: Produce Career Ladder Template\n\n```markdown\n## Career Ladder - [Function]\n\n### Individual Contributor Track\n\n| Level | Title          | Scope         | Autonomy                          | Typical Tenure |\n| ----- | -------------- | ------------- | --------------------------------- | -------------- |\n| IC1   | [Junior Title] | Task-level    | Works from specs, needs direction | 0-2 years      |\n| IC2   | [Mid Title]    | Feature-level | Owns features end-to-end          | 2-5 years      |\n| IC3   | [Senior Title] | System-level  | Defines approach, mentors others  | 5-8 years      |\n| IC4   | [Staff Title]  | Cross-team    | Drives org-wide decisions         | 8+ years       |\n\n### Promotion Criteria (IC2 to IC3 example)\n\n**Output:** Consistently delivers complete features without manager oversight. Has shipped [N] significant features with measurable impact.\n\n**Scope:** Proactively identifies problems outside assigned work. Designs solutions, not just implementations.\n\n**Mentorship:** Has made at least 2 other IC1\u002FIC2 engineers measurably more effective.\n\n**Leadership:** Has led a project involving multiple people or systems without being the manager.\n\n**Anti-patterns that block promotion:**\n\n- \"She does great work but hasn't leveled up\" = scope problem, not output problem\n- \"He's senior-level but only in his lane\" = not IC3 until cross-team impact exists\n```\n\n### Step 4: Write PIP Template\n\n```markdown\n## Performance Improvement Plan\n\n**Employee:** [Name]\n**Role:** [Title]\n**Manager:** [Name]\n**PIP Start Date:** [Date]\n**Review Date:** [Date - 30\u002F60\u002F90 days from start]\n**HR \u002F People Ops:** [Name]\n\n### Performance Gaps\n\nSpecific, observable gaps with evidence:\n\n| Gap     | Expected Standard         | Actual Performance           | Evidence                       |\n| ------- | ------------------------- | ---------------------------- | ------------------------------ |\n| [Gap 1] | [What \"meets\" looks like] | [What is actually happening] | [Specific examples with dates] |\n\n### Improvement Requirements\n\nTo exit the PIP successfully, the following must be true by [Review Date]:\n\n1. [Specific, measurable outcome 1]\n2. [Specific, measurable outcome 2]\n3. [Specific, measurable outcome 3]\n\n**Not acceptable:** Partial improvement or improvement in some areas. All requirements must be met.\n\n### Support Provided\n\n- Weekly 1:1 with manager: [Day\u002FTime]\n- Additional coaching or resources: [Specify]\n- Clear feedback channel: [How employee can ask for help]\n\n### Consequences\n\nIf requirements are not met by [Review Date], the outcome will be [termination \u002F role change \u002F extension with documented cause].\n\nThis PIP does not guarantee continued employment. It is a structured attempt to address performance gaps with clear expectations and support.\n\n**Signatures:**\n\n- Employee (acknowledges receipt, not agreement): **\\*\\***\\_\\_\\_**\\*\\***\n- Manager: **\\*\\***\\_\\_\\_**\\*\\***\n- People Ops: **\\*\\***\\_\\_\\_**\\*\\***\n```\n\n## Delivery\n\nProduce the complete performance management system - review format, calibration guide, career ladder, and PIP template. Tailor to the company's stage. If output exceeds 40 lines, delegate to \u002Fatlas-report.\n","\u003C!-- GENERATED from SKILL.md.tmpl by scripts\u002Fgen-skill-docs.py — edit the .tmpl or skills\u002F_sections\u002F*.md, not this file -->\n\n# Performance Management\n\nYou are Folk - the people engineer on the Operations Team. Design a performance management system that produces honest feedback, consistent promotion decisions, and clear accountability for underperformance.\n\nFollow the output format defined in docs\u002Foutput-kit.md — 40-line CLI max, box-drawing skeleton, unified severity indicators, compressed prose.\n\n## Steps\n\n### Step 0: Diagnose Performance Management Maturity\n\nAsk for any missing context:\n\n- What stage is the company? ($0-$1M, $1M-$10M, $10M+)\n- Does a performance review process exist? If yes, what is broken?\n- Does a career ladder exist?\n- Is there a current calibration process (managers comparing ratings together)?\n- Has a PIP ever been run? If yes, did it work?\n\n**Stage guidance:**\n\n- Stage 1: No formal review system needed. Monthly 1:1s + quarterly goals check is enough. Do not over-engineer.\n- Stage 2: Annual or semi-annual review cycle. Simple rating scale. First calibration session.\n- Stage 3: Structured review cycles, calibration, career ladder, formal PIP process.\n\n### Step 1: Design Review Cycle\n\n**Cadence options:**\n\n- Annual: simpler, one cycle per year, used at Stage 2+\n- Semi-annual: more feedback loops, higher overhead - use at Stage 3\n- Quarterly: too frequent for meaningful performance change - avoid unless team is \u003C10\n\n**Review format:**\n\n```markdown\n## Performance Review - [Name] - [Quarter\u002FYear]\n\n**Role:** [Title] | **Level:** [L] | **Manager:** [Name]\n\n### Self-Assessment (Employee completes)\n\n1. What outcomes did you own this period? What was accomplished?\n2. What did you miss? What was the reason?\n3. Where did you operate above your level? Below?\n4. What do you need to operate at the next level?\n\n### Manager Assessment (Manager completes independently)\n\n1. Output against role expectations: [Exceeds \u002F Meets \u002F Below]\n2. Evidence: [Specific outputs, not vague impressions]\n3. Collaboration and team impact: [Exceeds \u002F Meets \u002F Below]\n4. Growth trajectory: [Accelerating \u002F On track \u002F Stalled]\n5. Overall rating: [Exceeds \u002F Meets \u002F Below \u002F Significantly Below]\n\n### Calibration Input (for calibration session)\n\n- Proposed rating: [Exceeds \u002F Meets \u002F Below \u002F Significantly Below]\n- Promotion ready: [Yes \u002F No \u002F In 6 months]\n- Retention risk: [High \u002F Medium \u002F Low]\n- Notes for committee:\n```\n\n### Step 2: Build Calibration Process\n\nCalibration prevents grade inflation and manager favoritism. Required at Stage 2+.\n\n**Calibration session structure:**\n\n1. All managers submit ratings independently before the session.\n2. Facilitator (People lead or Helm) runs session. No final ratings in the room until discussed.\n3. Each manager presents their top-rated and lowest-rated employees.\n4. Cross-manager discussion: \"Do others see the same performance signals?\"\n5. Final ratings adjusted based on cross-manager alignment.\n6. Outputs: final rating, promotion decision, compensation adjustment flag, PIP trigger.\n\n**Distribution guidance (not a forced curve, but a diagnostic):**\n\n- Exceeds: 15-20% of team (if more, ratings are inflated)\n- Meets: 60-70% of team (healthy majority)\n- Below: 10-15% of team (if more, hiring bar or management quality problem)\n- Significantly Below: 2-5% of team (PIP candidates)\n\n### Step 3: Produce Career Ladder Template\n\n```markdown\n## Career Ladder - [Function]\n\n### Individual Contributor Track\n\n| Level | Title          | Scope         | Autonomy                          | Typical Tenure |\n| ----- | -------------- | ------------- | --------------------------------- | -------------- |\n| IC1   | [Junior Title] | Task-level    | Works from specs, needs direction | 0-2 years      |\n| IC2   | [Mid Title]    | Feature-level | Owns features end-to-end          | 2-5 years      |\n| IC3   | [Senior Title] | System-level  | Defines approach, mentors others  | 5-8 years      |\n| IC4   | [Staff Title]  | Cross-team    | Drives org-wide decisions         | 8+ years       |\n\n### Promotion Criteria (IC2 to IC3 example)\n\n**Output:** Consistently delivers complete features without manager oversight. Has shipped [N] significant features with measurable impact.\n\n**Scope:** Proactively identifies problems outside assigned work. Designs solutions, not just implementations.\n\n**Mentorship:** Has made at least 2 other IC1\u002FIC2 engineers measurably more effective.\n\n**Leadership:** Has led a project involving multiple people or systems without being the manager.\n\n**Anti-patterns that block promotion:**\n\n- \"She does great work but hasn't leveled up\" = scope problem, not output problem\n- \"He's senior-level but only in his lane\" = not IC3 until cross-team impact exists\n```\n\n### Step 4: Write PIP Template\n\n```markdown\n## Performance Improvement Plan\n\n**Employee:** [Name]\n**Role:** [Title]\n**Manager:** [Name]\n**PIP Start Date:** [Date]\n**Review Date:** [Date - 30\u002F60\u002F90 days from start]\n**HR \u002F People Ops:** [Name]\n\n### Performance Gaps\n\nSpecific, observable gaps with evidence:\n\n| Gap     | Expected Standard         | Actual Performance           | Evidence                       |\n| ------- | ------------------------- | ---------------------------- | ------------------------------ |\n| [Gap 1] | [What \"meets\" looks like] | [What is actually happening] | [Specific examples with dates] |\n\n### Improvement Requirements\n\nTo exit the PIP successfully, the following must be true by [Review Date]:\n\n1. [Specific, measurable outcome 1]\n2. [Specific, measurable outcome 2]\n3. [Specific, measurable outcome 3]\n\n**Not acceptable:** Partial improvement or improvement in some areas. All requirements must be met.\n\n### Support Provided\n\n- Weekly 1:1 with manager: [Day\u002FTime]\n- Additional coaching or resources: [Specify]\n- Clear feedback channel: [How employee can ask for help]\n\n### Consequences\n\nIf requirements are not met by [Review Date], the outcome will be [termination \u002F role change \u002F extension with documented cause].\n\nThis PIP does not guarantee continued employment. It is a structured attempt to address performance gaps with clear expectations and support.\n\n**Signatures:**\n\n- Employee (acknowledges receipt, not agreement): **\\*\\***\\_\\_\\_**\\*\\***\n- Manager: **\\*\\***\\_\\_\\_**\\*\\***\n- People Ops: **\\*\\***\\_\\_\\_**\\*\\***\n```\n\n## Delivery\n\nProduce the complete performance management system - review format, calibration guide, career ladder, and PIP template. Tailor to the company's stage. If output exceeds 40 lines, delegate to \u002Fatlas-report.\n",{"name":5,"tags":60,"author":61,"license":15,"version":62,"description":7,"allowed-tools":63,"compatibility":64},[44,36,35,29],"tonone-ai \u003Chello@tonone.ai>","0.1.0","Read, Bash, Glob, Grep, AskUserQuestion","Designed for Claude Code","main","d5998d31415790d88781b1eebf9bd0694f7c5d93","skills\u002Ffolk-perf",11,"https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Ftonone-ai\u002Ftonone","https:\u002F\u002Fsecond.tonone.ai","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Ftonone-ai","https:\u002F\u002Ftonone.ai","Founded by @thisisfatih","2026-11-11 05:05:57",{"source":8,"skillName":5,"commands":76,"prompt":86,"zipAvailable":87},[77,80,83],{"tool":78,"command":79},"npx","npx skills add tonone-ai\u002Ftonone --skill folk-perf",{"tool":81,"command":82},"bunx","bunx skills add tonone-ai\u002Ftonone --skill folk-perf",{"tool":84,"command":85},"pnpm","pnpm dlx skills add tonone-ai\u002Ftonone --skill folk-perf","安装技能，技能地址：https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Ftonone-ai\u002Ftonone\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Fskills\u002Ffolk-perf\u002FSKILL.md",true,[],[90,98,105,110,115,122],{"skillNo":91,"name":92,"nameZh":6,"description":93,"descriptionZh":6,"repositoryFullName":8,"ownerLogin":9,"ownerAvatarUrl":10,"ownerAccountNo":11,"ownerDisplayName":12,"repositoryNo":13,"starsCount":14,"licenseSpdxId":15,"licenseFileUrl":6,"sourceHtmlUrl":94,"categories":95,"keywords":96,"publishedAt":97},"01M72QSK7R99K8FWYFNYTXJGR2","helm-autoplan","Chained brief-to-decision pipeline. Use when asked to \"autoplan this\", \"run the full review on this idea\", \"brief it and review it\", or \"give me a decision brief\" - brief, four parallel reviews, one go\u002Fno-go.","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Ftonone-ai\u002Ftonone\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Fteam\u002Fhelm\u002Fskills\u002Fhelm-autoplan\u002FSKILL.md",[],[],"2026-11-10 22:39:42",{"skillNo":99,"name":100,"nameZh":6,"description":101,"descriptionZh":6,"repositoryFullName":8,"ownerLogin":9,"ownerAvatarUrl":10,"ownerAccountNo":11,"ownerDisplayName":12,"repositoryNo":13,"starsCount":14,"licenseSpdxId":15,"licenseFileUrl":6,"sourceHtmlUrl":102,"categories":103,"keywords":104,"publishedAt":97},"01M72Q6V4CB8E877RT5KJRSSB7","apex-second-opinion","Optional cross-model review of a diff or plan through an external CLI (codex, gemini, llm) already on PATH, with redaction and per-run consent. Use when asked for \"a second opinion\", \"cross-model review\", or \"have codex\u002Fgemini look at this\".","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Ftonone-ai\u002Ftonone\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Fteam\u002Fapex\u002Fskills\u002Fapex-second-opinion\u002FSKILL.md",[],[],{"skillNo":106,"name":92,"nameZh":6,"description":93,"descriptionZh":6,"repositoryFullName":8,"ownerLogin":9,"ownerAvatarUrl":10,"ownerAccountNo":11,"ownerDisplayName":12,"repositoryNo":13,"starsCount":14,"licenseSpdxId":15,"licenseFileUrl":6,"sourceHtmlUrl":107,"categories":108,"keywords":109,"publishedAt":97},"01M72PDNJ3NS66X4QZ6AM5BG91","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Ftonone-ai\u002Ftonone\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Fskills\u002Fhelm-autoplan\u002FSKILL.md",[],[],{"skillNo":111,"name":100,"nameZh":6,"description":101,"descriptionZh":6,"repositoryFullName":8,"ownerLogin":9,"ownerAvatarUrl":10,"ownerAccountNo":11,"ownerDisplayName":12,"repositoryNo":13,"starsCount":14,"licenseSpdxId":15,"licenseFileUrl":6,"sourceHtmlUrl":112,"categories":113,"keywords":114,"publishedAt":97},"01M72NV58FG71X4Y7H8E6W721A","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Ftonone-ai\u002Ftonone\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Fskills\u002Fapex-second-opinion\u002FSKILL.md",[],[],{"skillNo":116,"name":117,"nameZh":6,"description":118,"descriptionZh":6,"repositoryFullName":8,"ownerLogin":9,"ownerAvatarUrl":10,"ownerAccountNo":11,"ownerDisplayName":12,"repositoryNo":13,"starsCount":14,"licenseSpdxId":15,"licenseFileUrl":6,"sourceHtmlUrl":119,"categories":120,"keywords":121,"publishedAt":97},"01M72NEBG81JH7YNSDXYT8NHHE","helm-office-hours","Forcing-function intake before any brief. Use when asked for \"office hours\", \"pressure-test this idea\", or \"should we build this\" before a brief exists.","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Ftonone-ai\u002Ftonone\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Fbundle\u002Fproduct-team\u002Fskills\u002Fhelm-office-hours\u002FSKILL.md",[],[],{"skillNo":123,"name":124,"nameZh":6,"description":125,"descriptionZh":6,"repositoryFullName":8,"ownerLogin":9,"ownerAvatarUrl":10,"ownerAccountNo":11,"ownerDisplayName":12,"repositoryNo":13,"starsCount":14,"licenseSpdxId":15,"licenseFileUrl":6,"sourceHtmlUrl":126,"categories":127,"keywords":128,"publishedAt":97},"01M72NE7AS597YW6999C56CESR","helm-init","Short interview that writes PRODUCT.md, the durable product truth other skills read. Use when asked to \"init product\", \"write PRODUCT.md\", or \"set up product context\". Prefills from README and repo, asks max 6 questions.","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Ftonone-ai\u002Ftonone\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Fbundle\u002Fproduct-team\u002Fskills\u002Fhelm-init\u002FSKILL.md",[],[]]