Skip to content

Performance

Engineering performance reviews, grounded in Linear

Every sentence in the draft points at an issue ID. Claude reads the engineer’s shipped issues, PR reviews, and cycle work from Linear — so a report who disagrees with their review can open the evidence.

Join waitlist

Taito.ai assembles Daniel Hayes' Q2 performance review, grounded in 12 issues and 4 PR reviews and pulling source signal from Taito.ai and Linear, then drafting the reasoning: Daniel shipped ahead of plan in Q2, leading the auth migration and pairing with new engineers across the platform team. Q2 cycles show consistent delivery on ENG-1204, ENG-1257, and the review-latency initiative in ENG-1281, with growth opportunity in cross-team communication… It follows up with a suggested development discussion agenda: Open with the review-latency work in ENG-1281 and the pairing it unlocked. Move to a 30/60/90 plan for cross-team communication, then agree a Q3 goal of owning the platform roadmap for one initiative.

How it works

Show the work behind the review

Set the cycle up once. Claude pulls each engineer’s Linear work for the period and writes every claim against an issue ID, on the Taito.ai performance record.

Every claim has an issue ID

A report who disagrees with their review can open the evidence and check it themselves.

Managers don’t start from a blank page

The agent assembles the quarter’s work before anyone types a word.

Fair across the team

The same rubric, applied to the same evidence source, for every engineer.

Prompt 

In Taito.ai, set up the Q2 engineering performance review cycle.

Participants:
  – Everyone in the Engineering job family
  – Include contractors on active engagement

Questions each manager answers per direct report:
  1. Impact — what shipped this quarter, and how did it move the roadmap
  2. Technical judgement — quality of decisions and trade-offs
  3. Collaboration — how they showed up for the team and cross-team
  4. Growth — what to invest in next quarter

Schedule:
  – Opens June 15, closes June 30
  – Calibration meetings scheduled for July 3–5
  – Reminders at T-7, T-3, T-1 for anyone with open answers
  • Claude
  • Taito.ai MCP
  • Linear MCP

Frequently asked questions

Do managers have to use Claude?
No. The cycle runs in Taito.ai either way, and a manager can write the review by hand. Claude is how the evidence gets assembled before they start.
What if the Linear history is incomplete?
The draft only cites what it can find, and each claim carries the issue it came from — so gaps show up as gaps instead of being filled in with generalities.
Can the engineer see the evidence behind their review?
Yes. Sources stay attached to the review record, so a report can open the issues and PR reviews a claim is based on and challenge it if they disagree.

Built to work together

Keep exploring

More workflows on the Taito.ai MCP server, or browse all MCP use cases.

  • GTM performance reviews, grounded in HubSpot
    Performance

    GTM performance reviews, grounded in HubSpot

    Quota is the easy part. Claude pulls the deals behind the number — cycle length, expansion, forecast drift — straight from HubSpot.

    • Claude
    • HubSpot
  • Ask HR anything, in Slack
    Employee experience

    Ask HR anything, in Slack

    Time-off balances, policy answers, headcount lookups — answered from the live record in a DM, scoped to the asker.

    • Slack
    • Claude
  • Team availability, posted to Slack every Monday
    Employee experience

    Team availability, posted to Slack every Monday

    Every Monday the Taito.ai app posts approved leave, work-from-home days, and public holidays to #general, with coverage gaps flagged.

    • Slack