Review cards

Skill philpalmieri/engineering-manager-skills/skills/metrics/review-cards

Install

npx -y skills add philpalmieri/engineering-manager-skills --skill review-cards

Assembled from the repository path, not quoted from the project. Check it against their README if it does not work.

One thing to look at

1 stars1 stars. Stars are a popularity signal and not a quality one, but at this level it is likely that nobody has read this closely except its author, and you would be relying on your own review.

What its author says it does

Copied from the file, not written here

Generate quarterly review cards grading each engineer across multiple dimensions: output, velocity, collaboration, quality, breadth, review depth, responsiveness, and mentorship. Grades are level-adjusted (expectations scale with seniority). Use when asked for review cards, quarterly grades, or individual performance cards.

The file declares its own license as MIT. That is the author’s claim about this one file, and it is not the same thing as the license GitHub reports for the repository, which is listed with the other numbers below.

SKILL.md

5.2 KB, as published. Nobody here has run it

Engineer Review Cards

Generate grade-based review cards for each team member, assessing performance across multiple dimensions with level-adjusted expectations.

When to Trigger

"review cards", "quarterly grades", "performance cards"
"how is [person] doing?", "grade the team"
"level-adjusted performance", "expectations by level"
As part of a team health report

Data Sources

data/YYYY-MM/{login}-prs.json — output and velocity
data/YYYY-MM/{login}-reviews.json — collaboration and breadth
data/YYYY-MM/{login}-issues.json — issue engagement
data/enrichment/{pr_number}.json — quality (review rounds), review depth
team.json — level information for expectation scaling

Process

Step 1: Define level expectations

Expectations scale with level. Define thresholds per level:

Dimension	Junior (L1-L2)	Mid (L3-L4)	Senior (L5-L6)	Staff+ (L7+)
PRs/month	5-12	8-22	10-30	10-30+
Reviews/month	5-20	15-50	25-70	25-70+
Repo breadth	1-4	3-8	5-12	5-12+

These are configurable. If team.json has level data, map members to the appropriate tier. If levels are non-standard (e.g., "Senior", "IC3", "L9"), ask the user to confirm the mapping or infer from common patterns.

Step 2: Calculate raw metrics per person per quarter

Metric	Calculation
Output	PRs authored per month (averaged over quarter)
Velocity	Median time-to-merge (hours)
Collaboration	Reviews given to teammates per month
Quality	Average review rounds before merge (lower = better)
Breadth	Distinct repos with activity
Review Depth	% of reviews with written comments or change requests (vs rubber stamps)
Responsiveness	Median hours to first review on teammates' PRs
Mentorship	Review count weighted 2× for reviews given to newer team members (< 12 months tenure)

Step 3: Assign grades

Map each metric to a grade based on level-adjusted expectations:

Grade	Meaning
A+	Significantly exceeding level expectations
A	Exceeding expectations
B+	Meeting expectations with strength
B	Meeting expectations
C	Slightly below expectations
D	Below expectations

Grading uses the level-appropriate thresholds:

A+: > 130% of "exceeding" threshold
A: In "exceeding" range
B+: High end of "meeting" range
B: In "meeting" range
C: In "developing" range
D: Below "developing" range

Step 4: Calculate overall grade

Weighted average of dimensions:

Output: 20%
Velocity: 10%
Collaboration: 20%
Quality: 15%
Breadth: 10%
Review Depth: 10%
Responsiveness: 10%
Mentorship: 5%

Step 5: Growth trajectory

Compare current quarter to previous 1-2 quarters:

📈 Growing: overall grade improved
➡️ Stable: same grade (±0.3)
📉 Declining: overall grade dropped

Step 6: Multi-quarter view

Show a table with grades across the last 3-4 quarters to visualize trends at a glance.

Output Format

# Engineer Review Cards: {quarter}

## Team Grading Summary
| Person | Level | Output | Velocity | Collab | Quality | Breadth | Depth | Response | Mentor | Overall | Trend |
|--------|-------|--------|----------|--------|---------|---------|-------|----------|--------|---------|-------|
| alice  | Sr    | A      | A+       | B      | A       | A       | B+    | A        | C      | **A-**  | 📈    |
| bob    | Mid   | B      | C        | A      | B       | B       | A     | B        | A      | **B+**  | ➡️    |

---

## Individual Cards

### alice (Senior Engineer)

| Quarter | Output | Velocity | Collab | Quality | Breadth | Depth | Response | Mentor | Overall |
|---------|--------|----------|--------|---------|---------|-------|----------|--------|---------|
| Q1      | B      | A        | C      | B       | B       | —     | —        | —      | B       |
| Q2      | A      | A        | B      | A       | A       | B     | A        | C      | A-      |
| Q3      | A      | A+       | B      | A       | A       | B+    | A        | C      | A-      |

**Growth trajectory:** 📈 Strong upward trend

**Strengths:** Velocity, output, breadth
**Growth areas:** Mentorship (low review investment in newer members)

**Domain expertise:**
- 🔵 Owner: auth-service, api-gateway
- 🟢 Contributor: shared-utils, deploy-infra

Notes

Quarters with < 1 month of data get "—" (insufficient)
New team members (< 3 months) get a ramp-adjusted grade (expectations halved)
The quality metric inverts: lower rounds = better grade
The velocity metric inverts: lower TTM = better grade
"—" for metrics where enrichment data isn't available
If levels aren't in team.json, ask the user before proceeding