name: pip-writer
description: "Write a Performance Improvement Plan a manager can defend and an employee can actually act on — specific concerns, measurable goals, real support, and an honest timeline. Use when asked to write a PIP, put someone on a performance plan, document underperformance, or build a formal improvement plan. Produces the concern statement, the measurable goals with success criteria, the support plan, the check-in cadence, and the consequences — HR/legal-ready. Complements pip-responder (the employee's side)."
PIP Writer
A Performance Improvement Plan fails when it's vague ("improve communication"), unfair (goals no one could hit), or a paper trail dressed as help. This writes the version that is genuinely fair and defensible: concrete concerns tied to examples, goals with measurable success criteria, the support the company will provide, and honest stakes — so the outcome is either a real turnaround or a decision no one can call arbitrary.
Not legal advice. Employment law varies by jurisdiction and contract — have HR/counsel review before delivery.
What This Skill Produces
- The concern statement — what's below bar, tied to specific, dated examples (not personality)
- The goals — 2–4, each with a measurable success criterion and how it's evidenced
- The support plan — what the manager/company will do (coaching, resources, time)
- The cadence — check-in schedule and what each reviews
- The stakes & timeline — the plan length, the review points, and the honest consequence of not meeting bar
Required Inputs
Ask for these if not provided:
- The role & bar — what "meeting expectations" looks like for this level
- The specific gaps — concrete instances, with dates where possible (an audit trail beats adjectives)
- What's already been tried — prior feedback, informal or documented
- Timeline — 30 / 60 / 90 days, and any policy constraints
- The goal — genuine turnaround vs. documented exit; the plan is honest either way, but the framing differs
Framework: A Fair, Defensible PIP
- Behaviour, not character. Every concern is an observable action or output, with an example — never "attitude."
- Measurable or it's not a goal. "Respond to customer tickets within SLA on 95% of tickets," not "be more responsive."
- Support is real. If the plan asks for change, it names what help comes with it — else it's a setup.
- The bar is achievable. A goal no one at level could hit is evidence of bad faith, not underperformance.
- Consequences stated plainly. The employee should never be surprised by the outcome.
Output Format
Performance Improvement Plan — [name], [role]
Period: [start]–[end] · Manager: [x] · HR partner: [x]
Areas of concern
| Concern | Specific example(s) | Expected standard |
|---|
Improvement goals
| Goal | Measurable success criterion | Evidence | By |
|---|
Support provided
- [coaching / training / resources / adjusted workload]
Check-ins
- [cadence]; each reviews [progress vs. criteria]
Outcome
- If goals are met by [date]: [result]. If not: [honest consequence].
- Acknowledgement (signature ≠ agreement, just receipt): ______
Quality Checks
Anti-Patterns
- Vague concerns ("communication," "ownership") with no example — unactionable and indefensible.
- Goals with no measure — "improve quality" can't be passed or failed.
- A plan with stakes but no support — reads as manufactured, not corrective.
- Surprise consequences — the outcome must be foreseeable from day one.
- Documenting an exit while claiming turnaround — be honest internally about which this is.
Example Trigger Phrases
- "Write a PIP for an engineer missing delivery commitments."
- "Put together a 60-day performance improvement plan."
- "Help me document underperformance fairly before I talk to HR."
- "Draft a formal improvement plan with measurable goals and support."