To write a peer review, all you need is to reflect on your work with a colleague over the last performance review cycle, describe what you've directly observed, and share how they can continue to grow.

That sounds straightforward, but it often isn't. Most employees haven't been trained to give specific, constructive feedback, so peer reviews can become vague, overly positive, biased, or hard to act on. And using AI without human review can make the problem worse. 

If you're a manager or people professional trying to improve peer feedback quality, this step-by-step guide is for you. It offers a systematic approach to writing useful feedback, with plenty of examples, downloadable templates, and AI prompts to support your team in your next peer review process.

Why Peer Reviews Often Fall Short

Peer feedback typically includes input from teammates, cross-functional colleagues, and sometimes clients. Usually part of 360-degree reviews, peer reviews can round out a manager’s perspective on an employee. Executed well, It can save careers. But done poorly, major issues can manifest from:

1. Office politics: Peer feedback can be shaped by personal relationships, recent conflicts, popularity, potential conflicts of interest, or assumptions about someone's work style.
2. Fear of being too critical: Employees may soften or avoid constructive feedback because they do not want to damage a working relationship.
3. Lack of specificity: Many peer review comments describe someone as "great to work with" or "needing better communication" without explaining what the person did, what impact it had, or what they could do differently.
4. Low trust: When feedback feels risky or performative, employees may write what feels safe instead of what would be useful.
5. Unguided AI use: AI can help employees organize their thoughts, but when used as a substitute for reflection, it can produce polished feedback that lacks firsthand detail.

Tour Lattice Performance

3 Qualities of Useful Peer Reviews

Good peer reviews rely on feedback that is specific, actionable, and well-intentioned. Here’s what that looks like in practice:

1. Good feedback is specific and objective.

Meaningful feedback relies on evidence to make its point. “Specific feedback can increase employee engagement, especially if it's constructive on what to do next,” said Lisa Sansom, a positive interventionist and founder at LVS Consulting. Avoid assuming intent, making absolute "always" or "never" statements, or judging someone's personality. Be generous with details. "What specifically was done well, what specifically needs improvement and how specifically to make those improvements.”

2. Good feedback is actionable.

Useful feedback doesn’t stop at diagnosis. It also suggests what a person can do differently. "The 'constructive' part is when the peer or the manager can help somebody see how to move forward," said Sansom. "Give them some hope. Give them some concrete, specific things that they can do to help get better."

3. Good feedback is rooted in positive intent.

“What really matters is how employees feel as a result of the feedback,” said Sansom. Constructive or critical feedback can feel emotionally positive, but it must be non-judgmental, helpful, and focused on the larger good of the individual or organization. 

Ask yourself: "How can I deliver this feedback in such a way that demonstrates the care, the concern, the support that I want to communicate, that I believe in this person?"

How to Write Constructive Peer Review Feedback (With and Without AI)

The key to writing specific, actionable, and well-intentioned feedback is structure. This writing process can help.

Step 1: First, do a brain dump.

Collect the raw material you'll need: standout observations from projects, meetings, and day-to-day interactions. Cross out vague impressions, emotionally charged memories of recent interactions, or generic team consensus.

Then, organize those notes into strengths, areas for improvement, and growth opportunities. Dig through old emails, Slack threads, project trackers, and other sources to find concrete examples. If your performance management software supports it, check your dashboard for insights.

Lattice customers glide through this step. Lattice AI automatically organizes notes and observations from past reviews, goal updates, and check-ins, highlighting patterns grounded in your actual working relationship.

Request a demo

Step 2: Write your peer review.

An effective peer review balances recognition and constructive criticism while staying objective and focused on growth. Apply the Situation-Behavior-Impact (SBI)™  framework to compose constructive and positive feedback.

For each peer review comment:

1. Describe the Situation, clarifying the time, setting, and circumstances.
2. Highlight specific examples of Behaviors observed, limiting the level of detail to what a video recorder would capture. This excludes assumptions and judgments.
3. Explain the Impact the behavior had on you. This includes what you thought and felt, how others reacted, and the impact it had on the organization.

If you are using a Large Language Model (LLM) tool, the prompt below can give you a decent first draft. Be sure to check with your company’s data privacy policy before using a consumer LLM like ChatGPT or Claude, and anonymize identifying details of the individuals you are writing about.

{{rich-highlight-3}}

Step 3: Edit your feedback for fairness and clarity.

Even if you’re using a well-studied framework, care and judgment matter. “More specific feedback helps employees develop more cognitive trust in the feedback provider, but ‘too much’ can reduce that trust as it might appear as controlling or micro-management,” said Sansom.

“There is no one framework or ‘rule’ that will turn every feedback conversation into a success. It’s incredibly nuanced and complicated due to numerous organizational, team, and interpersonal factors,” cautioned Katie Duarte, a feedback specialist with Action Potential Solutions.

However, you can build connection and foster trust by leaning into making the other person feel seen, understood, and valued. “Communicate their value, your belief in their ability to achieve the expectation being set,” she added. It’s especially needed with written feedback, where body language and tone cues are absent.

Before you press send, ask yourself:

• Did I avoid assumptions about their intent?
• Did I focus on their behavior instead of their personality?
• Is the tone fair, respectful and professional?

Alternatively, paste your peer review comments into an LLM of your choice along with the prompt below. It will do some light proofreading, catch typos, and provide you with feedback on your feedback ;).

{{rich-highlight-4}}

Lattice AI proactively scans written feedback for bias — pointing out gendered language or inconsistencies in how similar behaviors are described across different reviewees.

Take a tour

Sample Peer Review Prompts and Responses

Organizations often use templates to standardize peer feedback. But a template is only as useful as the responses it generates: The comments should be specific, balanced, behavior-based, and tied to outcomes. Here are some examples contrasting useful and unhelpful peer review prompt responses.

Prompt 1: How would you rate the quality of the employee's work?

🚫 Weak Response: Leslie's data analysis is really good, but they could be better at reporting their work.

This tells us Leslie's analysis is good — but not what "good" looks like, or what "better reporting" would involve.

✅ Stronger Response

I'd rate Leslie's work as excellent. As an individual contributor on the analytics team, Leslie consistently delivers high quality analysis that's accurate, well-documented, and easy for others to use. In the recent customer retention analysis, they flagged a miscalculation that could have cost us weeks of work. One area for growth would be packaging insights more concisely for executive audiences, since their analysis can run more detailed than stakeholders need, affecting readability.

This response calls out a specific moment, ties the behavior to a concrete impact, and offers one growth area — enough for a manager to act on.

Prompt 2: How well does this person embody our culture?

🚫 Weak Response

Sarah is a fantastic culture carrier. She embodies our values every day and is always mission-driven and puts the team first. She's a joy to work with and I can't think of any area where she falls short culturally.

This is vague, glowing, and unsubstantiated. “Embodies our values” just restates the question — a reader has no idea what Sarah actually does. It's also useless to her: nothing to do more of, less of, or differently.

✅ Stronger Response

Sarah is who I'd point to when explaining what it means to 'Play as a Team.' On the product launch, she aligned marketing, product, and customer success around one timeline by clarifying owners, surfacing risks early, and making space for quieter team members to weigh in. She stays calm under pressure and keeps the team focused. To be even more effective, she could delegate more in high-pressure moments instead of absorbing extra coordination herself.

This praise names the value (“Play as a Team”), ties it to an observable moment, and balances praise with honest critique — framing her tendency to absorb coordination work as an opportunity to build delegation skills.

Prompt 3: How effective of a leader is this person, either through direct management or influence?

🚫 Weak Response

Amara is a good leader, I guess, but they need to stop trying to control everything. It feels like they don't trust other people to do their jobs, and it can be frustrating when they jump in too much instead of letting the team handle things.

This critique isn't specific, isn't actionable, and isn't rooted in positive intent. By saying “It feels like they don't trust other people,” the reviewer has jumped from an observed behavior to an assumption about Amara's mental state.

✅ Stronger Response

During the product launch project, when the team was under pressure to finalize timelines, Amara often stepped in to handle coordination themselves instead of assigning clear owners. This made it harder for others to own their work and created confusion about who was responsible. Amara is strong at keeping projects moving, but delegating more clearly in high-pressure moments would help the team operate with more confidence and independence.

In contrast, this stronger version doesn't diagnose Amara's mental state. It names an observable behavior — stepping in instead of assigning clear owners — and its impact: confusion over who was responsible. And it credits her strength at keeping projects moving.

{{rich-highlight-2}}

Best Practices for HR Teams Running Peer Review Cycles

"The goal for HR teams shouldn't just be to run a successful review cycle — it should be using the cycle as a lever to build something more durable: a culture where peer-to-peer feedback is always-on and genuinely normalized," said Liza Streiff, chief executive officer of performance conditioning business Highwire.

Here are some ways to make peer review cycles more effective:

1. Prepare employees before the cycle begins.

"Most people have never been taught how to give specific, actionable feedback and they need that foundation," said Streiff. Before the cycle opens, set clear expectations for strong feedback through examples, prompts, rubrics, or training.

Share Lattice's workbook, How to Request, Give, and Receive Feedback, with your managers and employees.

2. Create psychological safety with structure and guardrails.

Small changes in performance review design can help make giving direct feedback feel safer. HR should provide structured questions, clear rating criteria, and guidance on what examples to include. Anonymous peer reviews are a popular choice to encourage candor, but they still need clear prompts, moderation, and manager follow-up so vague or unfair comments don't shape the review unchecked.

3. Make it easy to give and receive feedback.

"Fundamentally, everyone has the need to feel seen, understood, and valued, and when we can do that for someone else, they're more likely to do it for us," said Duarte. “Acknowledge their effort, barriers they may have faced, development they did. This also is a wonderful way to start to build trust.”

Lattice Praise gives employees a low-stakes, public way to acknowledge each other year-round — building goodwill that makes honest feedback easier come review season.

Request a demo

4. Keep the cycle focused and manageable.

Too many reviewers or too little time leads to rushed, generic feedback. Limit reviewers per person; three to five usually surfaces meaningful patterns without survey fatigue. A well-paced cycle also gives people space to recall examples, weigh impact, and offer something useful.

5. Use technology to reduce administrative burden.

Cycles get complex fast as companies grow. Lattice Performance Management automates the logistics — reminders, visibility settings, routing, completion tracking — so HR spends less time on process and more on feedback quality. Structured workflows also help managers spot themes, follow up, and tie peer feedback to development goals.

Request a demo

Lattice Performance is highly customizable to each company’s unique performance management cycles. Global design and technology company Huge, for example, wanted feedback delivery to be aligned with the flow of work. So, they calibrated the process to solicit and collect feedback at different milestones throughout a specific project. This way, feedback was delivered in context at the right time, when everyone’s memory was fresh. 

6. Turn written feedback into growth conversations.

"Don't treat the written review as the finish line. The most important thing that can come out of a peer review cycle is a live conversation — someone sitting across from a colleague saying, here's what I see in you, and here's what I think you're capable of," said Streiff. “Nothing can replicate the coaching moment — that direct, human conversation where someone finally understands what's holding them back and what's possible for them. That moment requires presence, judgment, and trust.”

Feedback is most useful when both people can clarify meaning, context, and next steps. "Truly effective feedback occurs when there is a shared understanding of the matter at hand," said Duarte. "That only occurs when both people have the opportunity to share their unique perspective and experience of it." If that can happen in person or a live call, all the better for honest communication.

{{rich-highlight-1}}