Performance Review Workflow

Use this workflow to prepare for reviews without reconstructing months of work from memory.

1. Keep the evidence current

1. Run workrail sync
2. Open important entries and add the outcome, scope, and business context that Git metadata cannot provide
3. Add manual entries for work outside Git, such as mentoring, incident coordination, planning, and cross-team decisions

Entry activity is a memory-building habit, not an employee score.

2. Define the review scope

When you create a Review, choose:

• the employer context
• the projects that belong in this review
• the exact date range
• the employer's exact questions

Keeping the scope explicit prevents unrelated work from entering the draft.

3. Check evidence coverage

Workrail maps selected entries to the review questions so you can see which answers have strong evidence and which still need your input. Add context where the record is incomplete instead of treating a missing mention as proof that something did or did not happen.

If you only have a question and want a private starting point, use the software engineer review-question interpreter. It suggests the question's likely intent and returns an evidence outline in your browser; the question text is not sent to Workrail or an AI model.

4. Prepare and edit the draft

Evidence-backed draft claims remain linked to entries from the selected scope. User-provided context and suggested future goals are labelled separately. You control the final wording and should verify every number, attribution, and claim before sharing it.

5. Confirm what actually happened

After the review conversation, confirm the review result and add what you heard. Growth compares themes only after you confirm a result; a topic missing from one review is not automatically treated as improvement.

Metrics can then show feedback follow-through, outcome clarity, corroboration, and entry activity. These indicators describe evidence coverage and record-building habits. They do not score your performance, predict promotion readiness, or guarantee an outcome.

Common pitfalls

• Too much task detail, not enough outcomes
• Numbers without a source or comparison window
• Claims that fall outside the selected projects or dates
• Treating suggested goals as evidence of completed work
• Copying a draft without checking it against your employer's rubric