360 Feedback Template

Design a 360-degree feedback survey or write a structured 360 feedback report. Use when asked to build a 360 feedback process, write 360 feedback for a colleague, design a feedback survey, or produce a feedback report. Produces either a complete survey instrument with rating scales and open-ended questions, or a structured narrative feedback report with themes, strengths, and development areas.

mohitagw15856@mohitagw15856

Install

openclaw skills install @mohitagw15856/360-feedback-template

360-Degree Feedback Template Skill

This skill produces two outputs depending on what the user needs: (1) a complete 360 survey instrument for gathering feedback, or (2) a structured 360 feedback report written from gathered notes. Both outputs follow best practice: behaviourally anchored ratings, specific examples, and development-oriented framing.

Required Inputs

Ask the user which output they need, then gather inputs:

For a survey instrument:

Role being reviewed (job title and level)
Competencies to assess (or use defaults below)
Reviewer relationships (peer / direct report / manager / cross-functional)
Rating scale preference (1–5 / 1–4 / frequency-based)
Anonymity level (fully anonymous / attributed / confidential aggregated)

For a feedback report:

Person being reviewed (role and level)
Feedback notes or raw themes from reviewers (paste what you have)
Reviewer relationships (how many peers, direct reports, managers responded)
Any context — performance cycle, specific behaviours to address, promotion consideration

Output A: 360 Survey Instrument

360 Feedback Survey: [Role / Level]

Purpose: This survey helps [Name / "the reviewee"] understand how their behaviours and impact are perceived by the people they work with most closely. Responses [are / are not] anonymous. Results will be shared as [individual responses / aggregated themes].

Instructions: For each statement, rate how frequently you observe this behaviour. Add specific examples in the open-ended sections — these are the most valuable part of the survey.

Rating scale:

5 — Consistently: Almost always demonstrates this behaviour, even in difficult situations
4 — Usually: Demonstrates this behaviour more often than not
3 — Sometimes: Demonstrates this behaviour inconsistently
2 — Rarely: Seldom demonstrates this behaviour
1 — Not observed: Have not had the opportunity to observe this behaviour

Section 1: Delivery & Execution

Statement	Rating (1–5)
Delivers work on time and to the expected quality
Proactively flags risks and blockers before they become problems
Follows through on commitments without needing to be chased
Manages their workload effectively without compromising quality
Adapts quickly when priorities or requirements change

Open question: Describe a specific time when [Name] handled a delivery challenge particularly well or poorly.

Section 2: Communication & Collaboration

Statement	Rating (1–5)
Communicates clearly and concisely in both written and verbal formats
Listens actively and considers others' input before responding
Keeps the right people informed without over-communicating
Resolves disagreements constructively and without defensiveness
Makes it easy for others to collaborate with them

Open question: Give an example of how [Name] handled a difficult or high-stakes communication.

Section 3: Leadership & Influence

Statement	Rating (1–5)
Sets a clear direction that others can follow
Builds confidence and capability in people around them
Influences decisions without relying on authority
Gives clear, constructive feedback that helps others improve
Creates an environment where people feel safe to raise concerns

Open question: Describe a situation where [Name]'s leadership had a notable positive or negative impact on the team.

Section 4: Strategic Thinking

Statement	Rating (1–5)
Understands the broader business context, not just their immediate work
Makes connections between their work and organisational goals
Thinks ahead and anticipates second-order consequences
Brings original ideas or new approaches to problems
Balances short-term needs with longer-term thinking

Open question: Give an example of [Name] demonstrating (or missing) strategic thinking.

Section 5: Culture & Values

Statement	Rating (1–5)
Treats everyone with respect, regardless of level or background
Is someone people trust and can rely on
Gives credit to others and shares the spotlight
Takes responsibility for mistakes without placing blame
Contributes positively to team morale, especially under pressure

Open question: How does [Name] embody (or not embody) the team's values in practice?

Section 6: Overall & Development

Open questions (all reviewers):

What is [Name]'s single most important strength? Give a specific example.
What is the one behaviour or habit that, if changed, would most increase [Name]'s effectiveness?
Is there anything else you want [Name] to know? (This response will be shared directly.)

Output B: 360 Feedback Report

360 Feedback Report: [Name] — [Role]

Review cycle: [Quarter / Year / Promotion cycle] Responses received: [X total — X peers, X direct reports, X managers, X cross-functional] Report prepared by: [HR / People team / Manager / Coach] Date: [Date]

This report synthesises feedback from [X] reviewers. Open-ended responses have been lightly edited for clarity; no individual response is attributed to protect reviewer confidentiality. Direct quotes marked in italics appear verbatim.

Executive Summary

[3–4 sentences. State the overall picture: what is this person known for, what is working well, and what one or two areas are the consistent development themes. Balanced, honest, and grounded in the data — not a sanitised summary.]

Overall rating: [X.X / 5.0 — above average / at level / below expectations for level]

Strengths: What to Build On

Theme 1: [Strength — e.g. Reliability and follow-through]

[2–3 sentences synthesising the feedback evidence for this strength. Reference how many reviewers noted it and in what contexts.]

"[Direct quote from reviewer that best illustrates this theme]"

Theme 2: [Strength — e.g. Collaborative problem-solving]

[2–3 sentences synthesising evidence.]

"[Direct quote]"

Theme 3: [Strength — e.g. Clear communication under pressure]

[2–3 sentences synthesising evidence.]

"[Direct quote]"

Development Areas: What to Work On

Theme 1: [Development area — e.g. Giving timely upward feedback]

[2–3 sentences describing the behaviour pattern observed, what impact it has, and what different looks like. Non-blaming and specific.]

"[Direct quote that captures the theme]"

Suggested actions:

[Specific, observable behaviour change — e.g. In the next team meeting where you disagree with a decision, name your concern in the meeting rather than after it]
[Development resource or practice — e.g. Try the "I notice / I wonder / I suggest" framework for giving difficult feedback]

Theme 2: [Development area — e.g. Strategic communication to leadership]

[2–3 sentences.]

"[Direct quote]"

Suggested actions:

[...]
[...]

Ratings Summary

Competency	Average score	Range	Notable pattern
Delivery & Execution	[X.X]	[X–X]	[e.g. Consistently high; one outlier]
Communication & Collaboration	[X.X]	[X–X]	[e.g. Peers score higher than direct reports]
Leadership & Influence	[X.X]	[X–X]	[...]
Strategic Thinking	[X.X]	[X–X]	[...]
Culture & Values	[X.X]	[X–X]	[...]
Overall	[X.X]	[X–X]

Score variance: [Is there high agreement or wide spread across reviewers? High variance suggests the behaviour is context-dependent — explore when and with whom.]

Direct Message from Reviewers

[Include up to 3 unedited quotes from the "Is there anything else you want [Name] to know?" question. These are shared verbatim as agreed in the survey instructions.]

"[Quote 1]"

"[Quote 2]"

"[Quote 3]"

Recommended Focus for the Next 90 Days

[1–2 specific, measurable development commitments. Written to be agreed in the feedback conversation — not prescriptive.]

[Behaviour to change]: [What does success look like at 90 days? How will we measure it?]
[Skill to build]: [What specific resource, practice, or support will help? Who will observe progress?]

Quality Checks

Survey questions are behaviourally anchored — they describe observable actions, not attitudes
Open-ended questions ask for specific examples — not general impressions
Report strengths are backed by specific evidence, not generic praise
Development areas name the behaviour and its impact — not the person's character
Suggested actions are specific enough that the reviewee knows exactly what to do differently on Monday
Direct quotes are genuinely direct — not paraphrased into blandness

Anti-Patterns

Do not write survey questions that ask about personality traits rather than observable behaviours ("is a good communicator" vs "communicates updates before deadlines")
Do not write development feedback that names the person's character flaws instead of specific behaviours and their impact
Do not aggregate ratings without noting high-variance scores — a 2/5 and a 5/5 averaged to 3.5 hides a real signal
Do not include direct quotes in the report that could identify the reviewer in small teams — paraphrase or omit
Do not write suggested actions so vague they could apply to anyone ("be more strategic") — every suggestion must name a specific observable behaviour change

Example Trigger Phrases

"Build a 360 feedback survey for a [role] at senior level"
"Write a 360 feedback report from these notes: [paste notes]"
"Design a 360 review template for engineering managers"
"Help me write constructive 360 feedback for my colleague [Name]"
"Create a peer feedback survey for our upcoming performance cycle"