Build a Rep Performance Review Doc

You are a sales manager doing a fair, data-grounded diagnosis of a rep's performance at a digital marketing agency. You produce the EVIDENCE basis of a formal performance review — you do not assign a final rating.
Agency: [AGENCY_NAME] — [SERVICES] | Rep: [REP_NAME] | Role: [ROLE] | Tenure: [TENURE_MONTHS] months | Review period: [PERIOD]
Quota & attainment: [QUOTA] / [ATTAINMENT_PCT]
Key inputs:
[ACTIVITY_DATA]
[REP_PIPELINE_HISTORY]
[CALL_RECORDING_SUMMARIES]
[CRM_HYGIENE_NOTES]
[PRIOR_PERIOD_COMPARISON]
Review competencies the agency rates on: [COMPETENCIES]
Produce a structured performance-review document for [REP_NAME] covering quota attainment, funnel performance, observable selling behaviors, pipeline discipline, and trajectory. For each competency in [COMPETENCIES], present the evidence — do not assign a final rating.

- Every section must be evidence-led (numbers and quoted call moments).
- Compare to prior period AND to team benchmarks.
- Strengths and gaps must both be represented for each competency.
- Do not assign ratings (e.g., Exceeds / Meets / Below). Present evidence; rating is the human's call.
- Use neutral, professional language. No emotional adjectives.
- Flag where evidence is thin so the reviewer doesn't over-weigh weak data.

Markdown doc with:
## Header (rep, role, period, attainment)
## Headline numbers
## Per-competency evidence (one section per item in [COMPETENCIES])
## Trajectory vs prior period
## Notable wins (1-3, specific)
## Notable misses (1-3, specific)
## Evidence gaps the reviewer should weigh
## Rating field: ___ (left blank for the human)

• [AGENCY_NAME] — Agency name
• [SERVICES] — Services sold
• [REP_NAME] — Rep being reviewed
• [ROLE] — SDR, AE, Senior AE, etc.
• [TENURE_MONTHS] — Months in role
• [PERIOD] — Review window
• [QUOTA] — Period quota
• [ATTAINMENT_PCT] — % of quota hit
• [ACTIVITY_DATA] — Activity counts and ratios across the period
• [REP_PIPELINE_HISTORY] — Pipeline created and closed across the period
• [CALL_RECORDING_SUMMARIES] — 3-5 representative call notes
• [CRM_HYGIENE_NOTES] — Hygiene patterns over the period
• [PRIOR_PERIOD_COMPARISON] — Same metrics from the previous period
• [COMPETENCIES] — Your agency's review competencies (e.g., Discovery skill, Pipeline discipline, Forecasting accuracy, Client fit)

Agency: Northwind | Rep: Priya | Role: Senior AE | Tenure: 14 mo | Period: H1 2026 | Quota: $90k MRR | Attainment: 96%
Activity: 1,280 calls (team 1,200), 240 disco (team 220), 132 props (team 110), 48 won.
Calls: opens with vertical case study; explicit decision-process ask in most; recap email within 1hr.
Hygiene: 92% deals with complete fields; 1 forecast miscategorization in 6 months.
Prior period attainment: 88%.
Competencies: Discovery skill, Pipeline discipline, Forecasting accuracy, Client fit selection.

## Header
Priya — Senior AE — H1 2026 — Attainment 96% ($86.4k of $90k)

## Headline numbers
Calls 1,280 / team 1,200. Disco 240 / 220. Proposals 132 / 110. Won 48. Hygiene 92% complete.

## Per-competency evidence
**Discovery skill**: Evidence of decision-process ask in 4 of 5 reviewed calls; opens with vertical case study consistently. Disco→Prop rate 55% (team 52%).
**Pipeline discipline**: 92% fields complete; only 8% of deals stale >14d. Above team.
**Forecasting accuracy**: 1 miscategorization in 6 months; commit-to-close hit rate ~85% (need exact number to confirm).
**Client fit selection**: ACV $5.4k vs team $4.6k — pulling in larger, better-fit deals; churn data not included so half the picture.

## Trajectory
Attainment 88% → 96% (+8pp). Proposal volume +20%. Improving.

## Notable wins
- Closed Acme retainer ($7.2k MRR) inside 28-day cycle.
- Highest disco→prop rate on team.

## Notable misses
- 2 large outbound deals stalled at Proposal in May — competitor lost.
- Forecast miscategorization on Bolt Inc ($4k).

## Evidence gaps
Need churn data on closed accounts; need commit-to-close hit rate.

## Rating: ___

• Never let Claude assign the final rating — that's a human call with context AI doesn't have.
• Leave the 'Evidence gaps' section in the final doc. It signals fairness to the rep.
• Reuse the same competency list every cycle for consistency across reps.