ClickUp reviewer reference

Task Rating Guide

What to check. Which value to select. What evidence to record.

Effective means expectations were met.Compare the work with its agreed brief, deadline, and responsibility. Leave a field blank when there is no valid observation.

Start here

Check the agreed brief, acceptance criteria, deadline, and the employee's responsibility before rating.
Review the actual deliverable, task updates, and relevant stakeholder feedback.
Select only fields that the work gives you an opportunity to observe.
Add a short evidence note for ratings above or below Effective.
One designated reviewer finalizes the task values. Other reviewers add context in comments; resolve disagreements against evidence.

Rate demonstrated work, not personality, seniority, effort alone, or how much you like the person. Effective means the agreed expectations were met. Do not raise expectations retrospectively.

A blank field means no valid observation. It is not zero, poor performance, or an automatic Effective rating.

Shared rating scale

Select in ClickUp	Value	Evidence needed
Exceptional	5	Clearly exceeded expectations with substantial additional value. Explain the contribution and result.
Strong	4	Exceeded expectations in a meaningful, observable way.
Effective	3	Met the agreed expectations for this work.
Needs Improvement	2	Partially met expectations; avoidable gaps needed correction or intervention.
Significant Improvement Needed	1	Fell substantially below expectations; major gaps affected the outcome.

Apply this scale to Delivery Quality, Ownership, Communication, Problem Solving, Collaboration, and Proactiveness. Growth & Development and Role Excellence use it during the monthly review.

For these rating fields, the monthly average evidence value is multiplied by two to produce a score out of 10. This is the existing scoring method, not a separate task total. Do not apply it directly to Delivery Status or Rework Required.

Delivery Status

Compare against: the agreed delivery deadline and actual delivery timestamp.

Select	When to use
On Time	Delivered by the agreed deadline.
Minor Delay	Missed the deadline but stayed within a minor-delay tolerance agreed for this work.
Late	Exceeded that agreed tolerance or missed a critical delivery window.

Threshold still to define: Blinto has not yet documented a universal hours/days cutoff between Minor Delay and Late, or a numeric delivery-rating conversion. Agree and record the tolerance before work starts. For existing tasks without one, document actual lateness and have Fazle and Ifrat calibrate the classification consistently before using it in scoring.

Record approved deadline changes with their reason and date. Do not silently move the deadline after a miss to make delivery appear on time.

Blockage Responsibility

Compare against: the documented cause of a delay or blocker.

Select	Evidence
Assignee	An avoidable action or omission by the assignee caused the blockage.
Third Parties	A vendor or external dependency caused it.
Client	Client input, approval, access, or a client decision caused it.

Leave blank when there was no blockage. If causes were mixed, describe each cause in the comment and agree the primary cause rather than guessing.

A client-caused delay should not reduce the employee's delivery score. Third-party delays are also excluded from negative attribution unless there is evidence that the employee failed to manage or escalate the dependency appropriately. Delivery Status records timing; Blockage Responsibility explains attribution.

Delivery Quality

Compare against: the brief, acceptance criteria, technical or craft standards, and quality checklist.

Rating	Example evidence
Exceptional	Meets all requirements and delivers a substantial, verified quality improvement beyond the brief.
Strong	Meets requirements and adds a meaningful improvement in usability, robustness, accuracy, or presentation.
Effective	Meets the brief and checklist; ready for the intended use.
Needs Improvement	Misses agreed checks or requirements and needs avoidable corrections.
Significant Improvement Needed	Major defects, inaccuracies, or missing requirements make the output unusable for its intended purpose.

Example: a responsive page meets the approved design, works on agreed devices, and passes the checklist. Choose Effective. Correct delivery alone does not establish Exceptional performance.

Rework Required

Compare against: corrections needed because agreed requirements or quality standards were missed.

Select	When to use
None	No avoidable correction was needed.
Minor	Localized corrections were needed without rebuilding the core deliverable.
Major	Substantial rebuilding or correction was needed because core requirements were missed.

Changed scope, new client preferences, and agreed exploratory iteration are not automatically employee-caused rework. Record the reason. Rework supports the Delivery Quality assessment; do not add a second arbitrary deduction for the same defect.

Ownership

Compare against: responsibility, follow-through, risk escalation, and closure.

Rating	Example evidence
Exceptional	Takes responsibility through a complex obstacle and prevents a substantial delivery risk with verified results.
Strong	Anticipates dependencies and follows through beyond routine expectations without chasing.
Effective	Owns assigned work, follows through, and raises blockers when needed.
Needs Improvement	Needs repeated reminders or leaves agreed follow-up incomplete.
Significant Improvement Needed	Abandons responsibility or leaves serious known issues unresolved, materially affecting delivery.

Use task updates and follow-up records. Do not confuse working alone with ownership; asking for timely help can demonstrate it.

Communication

Compare against: agreed update cadence, clarity, timeliness, and early escalation.

Rating	Example evidence
Exceptional	Communication prevents a substantial misunderstanding or enables a critical decision, with a clear result.
Strong	Gives proactive, concise updates that materially improve coordination or decisions.
Effective	Provides clear updates and raises blockers within the agreed timeframe.
Needs Improvement	Updates are missing, late, or unclear and cause avoidable chasing or confusion.
Significant Improvement Needed	Critical information is withheld or repeatedly missed, materially harming delivery.

Judge usefulness, not message volume, accent, or personal communication style.

Problem Solving

Compare against: investigation, judgment, solution quality, and verification.

Rating	Example evidence
Exceptional	Resolves a difficult root cause and produces a substantial, reusable improvement.
Strong	Investigates alternatives and implements a robust solution beyond the expected approach.
Effective	Investigates the issue, applies a suitable solution, and checks that it works.
Needs Improvement	Relies on avoidable guesswork or repeats fixes without checking the cause.
Significant Improvement Needed	Ignores a known serious problem or implements an unverified solution that materially worsens it.

If the task presented no meaningful problem-solving opportunity, leave this field blank.

Collaboration

Compare against: coordination, useful handovers, and contribution to shared work.

Rating	Example evidence
Exceptional	Resolves a substantial coordination obstacle and enables a major shared outcome.
Strong	Proactively helps others and improves a handover or dependency beyond expectations.
Effective	Coordinates as needed, shares necessary context, and completes agreed handovers.
Needs Improvement	Missed coordination or incomplete handovers cause avoidable friction.
Significant Improvement Needed	Repeatedly fails essential coordination or obstructs agreed shared work, materially affecting the outcome.

A solo task without observable collaboration can remain blank. Do not automatically give every assignee the same rating.

Proactiveness

Compare against: useful action on relevant risks or opportunities before prompting.

Rating	Example evidence
Exceptional	Identifies and acts on an overlooked issue or opportunity with substantial verified benefit.
Strong	Anticipates a relevant risk or improvement and takes useful action beyond routine expectations.
Effective	Performs expected checks and raises foreseeable issues within the assigned scope.
Needs Improvement	Misses a foreseeable issue they were expected to notice and needs prompting.
Significant Improvement Needed	Ignores an obvious serious risk despite responsibility and opportunity to act, materially affecting the outcome.

Doing unrequested extra work is not automatically proactive value. If there was no relevant opportunity, leave blank.

Client / Business Impact

Compare against: the deliverable's intended outcome and observed benefit, such as conversion improvement, risk reduction, time saved, or client value.

Select in ClickUp	Value	Evidence
Exceptional Impact	5	Substantial verified benefit far beyond the intended outcome.
Strong Impact	4	Meaningful verified benefit beyond the intended outcome.
Expected Impact	3	Achieved the intended benefit.
Limited Impact	2	Produced some benefit but fell below the intended outcome.
No Meaningful Impact	1	Evidence shows the intended meaningful benefit was not achieved.

Use only on meaningful deliverables where outcomes can reasonably be observed. Unknown or not-yet-measured impact stays blank; it is not No Meaningful Impact. Record harmful outcomes explicitly in the evidence note because the lowest dropdown label does not fully describe negative impact.

Quality and impact are different: a technically correct deliverable can have an outcome that is still unknown.

Monthly-only fields

Growth & Development: the Review Manager evaluates progress against 2–3 agreed development goals, learning applied in work, and demonstrated capability improvement.

Role Excellence: the Review Manager evaluates documented monthly outcomes against the employee's Role Success Plan.

Use the shared five-level scale. Meeting agreed goals or role outcomes supports Effective; higher ratings need evidence of exceeding them. Course attendance or a general positive impression is not enough.

Keep these fields blank on ordinary work tasks, even if ClickUp displays them there. Ifrat's monthly Delivery Reviewer feedback provides qualitative context and does not create a second score for the same evidence.

Worked task example

A developer delivers a landing page by the agreed deadline. It meets the approved design and responsive checklist, needs no avoidable correction, and the developer provides the expected updates. Conversion results are not available yet.

Field	Value	Reason
Delivery Status	On Time	Delivered by the agreed deadline.
Blockage Responsibility	Blank	No blockage occurred.
Delivery Quality	Effective	Meets the brief and checklist.
Rework Required	None	No avoidable corrections.
Ownership	Effective	Followed through on assigned responsibility.
Communication	Effective	Agreed updates were clear and timely.
Client / Business Impact	Blank	Outcome has not yet been measured.

Rate other behavioural fields only if the task contains evidence for them. Leave monthly-only fields for the monthly review.

Feedback format and reviewer agreement

Copy this into the task comment:

Field and value: Delivery Quality — Needs Improvement
Expected: Responsive layout checked on the agreed devices before handoff.
Observed: Mobile navigation overlapped the page content at handoff.
Evidence: Link to screenshot or test result.
Next expectation: Complete the responsive checklist before the next handoff.

Fazle and Ifrat should independently review a few of the same tasks, compare their reasoning, and agree the final values before scaling up. If ratings differ, return to the acceptance criteria and evidence; do not average two opinions without resolving the reason.

For multi-assignee work, record whose contribution each observation describes. Use individually attributable subtasks or explicit contribution notes where needed; a single task field must not be blindly copied to every employee.

Employees may provide missing context or point out factual errors. Correct the source evidence rather than compensating by changing an unrelated monthly score.