How to use the Peer Feedback Generator.
Feedback should describe behavior, impact and a useful next step. Avoid broad labels that the recipient cannot act on.
Make the workflow fit your task.
Choose a behavior the recipient can recognize, describe its effect and suggest a practical next step. Keep the wording proportionate to the evidence and leave room for context you may not know.
- What you provide
- Observed behavior and impact.
- What you get
- Specific constructive feedback with actionable next steps.
See the input and the result.
Illustrative input and output · a teaching example, not a live WebAct run
Example input
A teammate changes file names without notifying reviewers, causing reviewers to reopen older versions. Draft behavior-focused feedback and a practical request.
Completed example
When file names change without a note to reviewers, we sometimes reopen an older version and repeat the review. Could we agree a naming convention and add a short notification whenever the review file changes? That would make it easier to identify the version we should use.
Load this input into the prompt, then copy it to WebAct to try the task. Your result may differ from the illustration.
Decisions and troubleshooting.
Should peer feedback use broad labels such as careless?
Describe the observable action instead. A specific behavior and impact give the person something they can understand and change.
Why does constructive feedback sound like a personal attack?
Remove assumptions about intent and focus on the work. Invite discussion of the process that would prevent the problem.
Try it with your own source.
Replace the example with your material in the task prompt. Keep the requirements you need, then copy the task into WebAct.
Customize and copy the task ↑