360-feedback-template
Design a 360-degree feedback survey or write a structured 360 feedback report. Use when asked to build a 360 feedback process, write 360 feedback for a colleague, design a feedback survey, or produce a feedback report. Produces either a complete survey instrument with rating scales and open-ended questions, or a structured narrative feedback report with themes, strengths, and development areas.
git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/mohitagw15856/pm-claude-skills /tmp/360-feedback-template && cp -r /tmp/360-feedback-template/exports/openclaw/360-feedback-template ~/.claude/skills/360-feedback-templateSKILL.md
# 360-Degree Feedback Template Skill This skill produces two outputs depending on what the user needs: (1) a complete 360 survey instrument for gathering feedback, or (2) a structured 360 feedback report written from gathered notes. Both outputs follow best practice: behaviourally anchored ratings, specific examples, and development-oriented framing. ## Required Inputs Ask the user which output they need, then gather inputs: **For a survey instrument:** - **Role being reviewed** (job title and level) - **Competencies to assess** (or use defaults below) - **Reviewer relationships** (peer / direct report / manager / cross-functional) - **Rating scale preference** (1–5 / 1–4 / frequency-based) - **Anonymity level** (fully anonymous / attributed / confidential aggregated) **For a feedback report:** - **Person being reviewed** (role and level) - **Feedback notes or raw themes** from reviewers (paste what you have) - **Reviewer relationships** (how many peers, direct reports, managers responded) - **Any context** — performance cycle, specific behaviours to address, promotion consideration --- ## Output A: 360 Survey Instrument --- # 360 Feedback Survey: [Role / Level] **Purpose:** This survey helps [Name / "the reviewee"] understand how their behaviours and impact are perceived by the people they work with most closely. Responses [are / are not] anonymous. Results will be shared as [individual responses / aggregated themes]. **Instructions:** For each statement, rate how frequently you observe this behaviour. Add specific examples in the open-ended sections — these are the most valuable part of the survey. **Rating scale:** - **5 — Consistently:** Almost always demonstrates this behaviour, even in difficult situations - **4 — Usually:** Demonstrates this behaviour more often than not - **3 — Sometimes:** Demonstrates this behaviour inconsistently - **2 — Rarely:** Seldom demonstrates this behaviour - **1 — Not observed:** Have not had the opportunity to observe this behaviour --- ### Section 1: Delivery & Execution | Statement | Rating (1–5) | |---|---| | Delivers work on time and to the expected quality | | | Proactively flags risks and blockers before they become problems | | | Follows through on commitments without needing to be chased | | | Manages their workload effectively without compromising quality | | | Adapts quickly when priorities or requirements change | | **Open question:** Describe a specific time when [Name] handled a delivery challenge particularly well or poorly. --- ### Section 2: Communication & Collaboration | Statement | Rating (1–5) | |---|---| | Communicates clearly and concisely in both written and verbal formats | | | Listens actively and considers others' input before responding | | | Keeps the right people informed without over-communicating | | | Resolves disagreements constructively and without defensiveness | | | Makes it easy for others to collaborate with them | | **Open question:** Give an example of how [Name] handled a difficult or high-stakes communication. --- ### Section 3: Leadership & Influence | Statement | Rating (1–5) | |---|---| | Sets a clear direction that others can follow | | | Builds confidence and capability in people around them | | | Influences decisions without relying on authority | | | Gives clear, constructive feedback that helps others improve | | | Creates an environment where people feel safe to raise concerns | | **Open question:** Describe a situation where [Name]'s leadership had a notable positive or negative impact on the team. --- ### Section 4: Strategic Thinking | Statement | Rating (1–5) | |---|---| | Understands the broader business context, not just their immediate work | | | Makes connections between their work and organisational goals | | | Thinks ahead and anticipates second-order consequences | | | Brings original ideas or new approaches to problems | | | Balances short-term needs with longer-term thinking | | **Open question:** Give an example of [Name] demonstrating (or missing) strategic thinking. --- ### Section 5: Culture & Values | Statement | Rating (1–5) | |---|---| | Treats everyone with respect, regardless of level or background | | | Is someone people trust and can rely on | | | Gives credit to others and shares the spotlight | | | Takes responsibility for mistakes without placing blame | | | Contributes positively to team morale, especially under pressure | | **Open question:** How does [Name] embody (or not embody) the team's values in practice? --- ### Section 6: Overall & Development **Open questions (all reviewers):** 1. What is [Name]'s single most important strength? Give a specific example. 2. What is the one behaviour or habit that, if changed, would most increase [Name]'s effectiveness? 3. Is there anything else you want [Name] to know? (This response will be shared directly.) --- ## Output B: 360 Feedback Report --- # 360 Feedback Report: [Name] — [Role] **Review cycle:** [Quarter / Year / Promotion cycle] **Responses received:** [X total — X peers, X direct reports, X managers, X cross-functional] **Report prepared by:** [HR / People team / Manager / Coach] **Date:** [Date] > This report synthesises feedback from [X] reviewers. Open-ended responses have been lightly edited for clarity; no individual response is attributed to protect reviewer confidentiality. Direct quotes marked in *italics* appear verbatim. --- ### Executive Summary [3–4 sentences. State the overall picture: what is this person known for, what is working well, and what one or two areas are the consistent development themes. Balanced, honest, and grounded in the data — not a sanitised summary.] **Overall rating:** [X.X / 5.0 — above average / at level / below expectations for level] --- ### Strengths: What to Build On **Theme 1: [Strength — e.g. Reliability and follow-through]** [2–3 sentences synthesising the feedback evidence for this strength. Reference how many reviewers no
Conduct a structured ethical review of an AI or ML feature, model, or product. Use when preparing to deploy an AI system, assessing algorithmic risk, auditing a model for bias, or producing a responsible AI impact assessment. Produces a structured ethics review covering fairness, transparency, privacy, safety, accountability, and societal impact with a risk tier score, pre-deployment checklist, and prioritised mitigations.
Structure AI and ML product decisions with the rigour of any product decision. Use when building AI-powered features, evaluating LLM integrations, designing AI products, or assessing AI readiness. Produces a complete AI product canvas covering problem definition, model approach, data requirements, evaluation framework, UX design, responsible AI checklist, and launch monitoring plan.
Transform feature briefs into structured design briefs that give designers the context they need before opening Figma. Use when asked to write a design brief, create a design handoff, brief a designer on a new feature, or translate a PRD into design requirements. Produces a brief with user goal, emotional context, success criteria, constraints, edge cases, and out-of-scope boundaries.
Design statistically rigorous A/B tests and interpret experiment results. Use when asked to design an experiment, run an A/B test, calculate sample size, interpret test results, or assess whether an experiment was successful. Produces a complete experiment design with hypothesis, sample size, run time, success criteria, and risk flags — or a results interpretation with ship/iterate/kill recommendation.
Synthesises user signals from multiple research sources into a unified, weighted insight brief. Use when you have data from interviews, support tickets, NPS verbatims, app reviews, or sales calls and need to reconcile contradictions, surface the underlying need behind requests, or answer 'what are users really telling us'. Produces ranked insights with confidence ratings, source weighting rationale, divergent signal analysis by user segment, and a research gap identification section.
Structure a product data analysis, metric deep-dive, funnel analysis, or cohort study. Use when asked to analyse product metrics, investigate a drop in conversion, explain a data change to stakeholders, or find the root cause of a metric movement. Produces a structured analysis with question, root cause, confidence level, and recommended action.
Interpret product metrics against goals and surface actionable signals. Use when asked to analyse product health, review key metrics, investigate a performance issue, produce a health report, or assess product-market fit signals. Produces a structured health report with RAG status, trend analysis, root cause hypotheses, and prioritised actions.
Structure a retention analysis, churn investigation, or engagement deep-dive for any product team. Use when asked to analyse user retention, investigate churn, measure DAU/MAU, or build a retention improvement plan. Produces a retention snapshot with root cause hypotheses, aha-moment correlation, and prioritised interventions.