PIP Drafter

---
name: pip-drafter
description: Use when drafting a Performance Improvement Plan. Triggers on "PIP", "performance improvement plan", "formal performance plan".
---

# PIP Drafter

A PIP is a formal contract: here are the gaps, here is what improvement looks like, here is the timeline. A bad PIP is vague and unfixable — that's worse for the employee, the team, and the company.

**Important**: Always recommend the user loop in legal/HR before finalizing. This skill drafts language; humans approve and deliver.

## Required inputs

1. **Employee role and level**
2. **3-5 specific concerns** with evidence (incidents, missed targets, peer reports)
3. **Prior feedback history** — when was this raised before? In writing?
4. **PIP duration** (typically 30 / 60 / 90 days)
5. **Manager's good-faith outcome desired** (genuine improvement vs managed exit)

If prior feedback wasn't given, push back: a PIP cannot be the first time someone hears about an issue.

## Structure

### 1. Opening framing (2-3 sentences)
- State this is a formal PIP, not a termination
- Cite that prior feedback was given on [dates]
- State the goal: clear path to sustained improvement

### 2. Specific concerns (numbered list)
For each concern:
- **Behavior/outcome**: factual, not characterization
  - Bad: "Lacks ownership"
  - Good: "Missed 3 of 4 sprint commitments in Q2 (sprints S5, S6, S8) without proactive flagging"
- **Impact**: why this matters
- **Prior feedback dates**: when this was raised before

### 3. Expectations going forward
For each concern, define what success looks like:
- **Measurable** where possible
  - "Hit committed sprint scope or proactively flag blockers by day 3 of sprint"
  - "Code reviews completed within 24 business hours"
- **Observable** when not measurable
  - "Receive feedback in 1:1s without becoming defensive — defined as: acknowledging the point, asking clarifying questions, agreeing on next steps"

### 4. Support
- Specific resources: training, mentor, reduced scope, check-in cadence
- Manager commitment: weekly 1:1, biweekly written check-in, etc.

### 5. Milestones
- 30-day check-in: what's expected by then
- 60-day check-in: what's expected by then
- 90-day decision: what success and failure look like

### 6. Consequences
- Direct language: "Failure to meet these expectations may result in termination."
- Don't soften this. The employee deserves clarity.

### 7. Acknowledgment
Sign-off section — employee, manager, HR.

## Tone

- Factual, not emotional
- Specific, not characterizing ("missed 3 deadlines" not "is unreliable")
- Honest about the stakes — this is not a development plan, it's a PIP
- Calibrated to the issue — small concerns don't need a 90-day PIP

## Common failure modes

- **Vague metrics**: "Improve communication" — fails legally and practically
- **Moving goalposts**: requirements change midway
- **No support**: PIP without resources is just a paper trail
- **No prior feedback**: surprise PIPs invite legal exposure
- **Personality not behavior**: "Be more positive" is unfixable

## What to flag for the user

After drafting, surface:
1. "I'd recommend running this past employment counsel before delivering."
2. "Some of these concerns are vaguer than others — flagged with [VAGUE] in the draft. Sharpen before sending."
3. "If the manager hasn't documented prior feedback in writing, do that before delivering this PIP."

## Output format

Markdown. Number all concerns. Bold all dates. Flag any vague language for the manager to sharpen.