Majk ·
Step 1 of 12
💬
The conversation will appear here as you step through →
Call it anything — this is just your label for finding the task later.
Point this at the folder with the review evidence.
Select Majk Rabbit — the general assistant.
Start New Task
✕
Name your task, choose where to work, and select a teammate
Task Name *
Alex review draft
Working Directory
/Users/yourname/Documents/alex_torres_review
Team Member
🔍 Search...
Majk Rabbit Default General Assistant
✓
···
⚙️ Work Strategy Configuration
Isolated Workspace ▶
Y
You

I need to write a performance review for Alex Torres, Senior Engineer, covering H1 2024. All the evidence is in this folder — 1:1 notes, peer feedback, project post-mortems, and a Jira export.

Draft a review covering:

  • Key accomplishments — with specific evidence from the documents
  • Strengths — what peers and project outcomes confirm
  • Growth areas — recurring themes from 1:1 notes and peer feedback, not just my impressions
  • Recommended goals for H2

Cite your sources for every claim — I need to know which document each point came from so I can verify.

Write a report I can edit — with all the sections, evidence, and citations in one document.

8:30 AM
A
AI Assistant Majk Rabbit

I'll read all the source material first and build the review from evidence. Let me go through everything...

📄 Read 1on1_notes_h1_2024.md — 24 weeks of notes, extracting themes and quotes
📄 Read peer_feedback_responses.docx — 4 peer responses, coding for positive and constructive themes
📄 Read payments_migration_postmortem.pdf — timeline, outcomes, Alex's role
📄 Read api_redesign_prd.pdf — Alex's contributions to cross-team effort
📄 Read jira_export_h1.csv — ticket completion rate, epic delivery, bug counts
>_ Bash python3 analyze_evidence.py — cross-referencing themes across all source documents
✎ Write alex_torres_review_draft.md — full review with sections, evidence excerpts, and source citations
8:31 AM
A
AI Assistant Majk Rabbit
Performance Review — Alex Torres, Senior Engineer
Review period: H1 2024 · Draft generated from 1:1 notes, peer feedback, project docs, Jira data
Key Accomplishments

Led the payments migration — 3-month timeline, zero-downtime cutover, unlocked $2.1M ARR. Designed the rollback strategy that made the zero-downtime approach possible.

Source: payments_migration_postmortem.pdf, jira_export_h1.csv (47 tickets closed, 3 epics on time)

Reduced P0 incidents from 4 to 1 in H1 by introducing a pre-deploy checklist adopted by the full engineering team.

Source: 1on1_notes_h1_2024.md (weeks 8, 14), jira_export_h1.csv
Strengths

Mentoring: 3 of 4 peers independently cited Alex's code reviews as "the best learning experience on the team." This is an outsized, under-recognized impact.

Source: peer_feedback_responses.docx (responses 1, 2, 4)

Cross-team collaboration: Partnered with the platform team on the API redesign. Three peers mentioned this unprompted.

Source: peer_feedback_responses.docx, api_redesign_prd.pdf
Growth Areas

Delegation: Tends to take on critical-path work solo. This theme appeared 3 separate times in 1:1 notes across the half, and Jira data confirms it — Alex was the sole assignee on 8 of 10 critical-path tickets.

Source: 1on1_notes_h1_2024.md (weeks 4, 11, 19), jira_export_h1.csv

Visibility: Impact is high but under-communicated. Zero demo presentations in H1 despite shipping a major migration. No peers mentioned awareness of the pre-deploy checklist initiative.

Source: 1on1_notes_h1_2024.md (week 22), peer_feedback_responses.docx
Recommended Goals for H2

1. Identify one major project where Alex coaches another engineer through the hard parts rather than owning them directly. 2. Present at least twice at engineering all-hands or demo day. 3. Document and share the pre-deploy checklist process with the broader org.

Y
You

The growth areas section is too gentle. Alex is targeting Staff promotion in H2 — the feedback needs to be direct about what he specifically needs to demonstrate. Rewrite the growth section with that framing: what does he need to show for Staff-level readiness?

9:05 AM
A
AI Assistant Majk Rabbit

Good call. Let me reframe the growth areas around Staff-level expectations — same evidence, but framed as "here's what promotion readiness looks like" rather than "here's what you could improve"...

9:06 AM
A
AI Assistant Majk Rabbit
Revised Growth Section — Calibrated for Staff Promotion
Same evidence, reframed around what Staff-level readiness looks like
Before (original draft)

"Alex could benefit from delegating more critical-path work to build the team's capacity."

After (calibrated)

"For Staff promotion readiness, Alex needs to demonstrate that the team can deliver critical-path work without his direct involvement. In H2, I'd like to see him identify one major project where he coaches another engineer through the hard parts rather than owning them himself."

The calibrated version turns a vague suggestion ("could benefit from") into a specific, actionable expectation tied to a career goal. Same evidence from the same documents — the framing changed, not the facts.

Y
You

Based on the growth areas, suggest 3 specific, measurable H2 goals that would demonstrate Staff-level readiness. Each goal should have a clear success criterion.

9:20 AM
A
AI Assistant Majk Rabbit

Goal 1: Delegation & Team Leverage

Own one major H2 project (e.g., billing v2) where Alex designs the architecture but a mid-level engineer leads the implementation. Success: the project ships on time and Alex's commit count is <20% of total.

Goal 2: Technical Visibility

Present at 2+ engineering all-hands or demo days. Write 1 engineering blog post or internal RFC that other teams reference. Success: measurable audience beyond his immediate team.

Goal 3: Cross-Team Influence

Lead one technical decision that requires alignment across 2+ teams (e.g., shared API standards, testing strategy). Success: decision is adopted and Alex is recognized as the driver by the other team leads.

9:21 AM · 310 tokens
Y
You

Alex submitted his self-review. Compare what he says against what the evidence shows — where does he overrate and underrate himself?

9:35 AM
A
AI Assistant Majk Rabbit

Where Alex underrates himself:

  • Mentoring impact — His self-review mentions code reviews briefly. But 3 of 4 peers independently cited his code reviews as the best learning experience on the team. He doesn't see the outsized impact.
  • Payments migration scope — He describes it as "leading a migration." The post-mortem shows he designed the zero-downtime strategy, negotiated the timeline with product, and personally debugged the critical data reconciliation issue. He undersells his contribution.

Where Alex overrates himself:

  • Delegation — His self-review says "I'm working on delegating more." But the Jira data shows he was the sole assignee on 8 of 10 critical-path tickets in H1. The intent is there; the behavior hasn't changed yet.
  • Cross-team collaboration — He lists the API redesign as a collaboration win. Peer feedback suggests he contributed technically but didn't drive alignment — the platform team lead did the heavy lifting on stakeholder management.

These gaps are actually useful in the review conversation — they show Alex where his self-perception differs from what others observe.

9:37 AM · 400 tokens