Phaeacia Agent Passport
00The document

Passport · spec 0.1 · checked 2026-09-28

Install this agent pick your assistant, copy one block

In the gallery under Personal and planning, listed 2026-09-28. See the rest of it

Phaeacia Type A · read-notify
Page 1 of 4

Agent
Passport

Bearer

Self-Review Coach

self-review-coach
Purpose

It is a coach for writing your own performance self-review: it takes stock of the notes, goals and feedback you give it, asks you questions before it concludes anything, then maps your evidence to…

the first line of the owner’s description

The bearer

Page 2 of 4
No portrait
Software bearer
Name
self-review-coach
Title
Self-Review Coach
Issued
2026-09-28
Link expires
Listed in the gallery, does not expire
Capture path
file
Envelope
read-notify
Source stack
Python chat pipeline behind a local web app, open-weight 35B model served on the owner's own machine, files from uploads and local folders
Scrub
regex+llm, owner-reviewed
Signed by owner
Confirmed this description

Source stack is where this agent ran before it was captured. Your rebuild does not need it, and nothing in the install tries to reproduce it.

Observations

It is a coach for writing your own performance self-review: it takes stock of the notes, goals and feedback you give it, asks you questions before it concludes anything, then maps your evidence to your goals or competency framework, names the claims that have nothing behind them, and on request writes a first-person draft with every claim cited. It works as a conversation that you start whenever a review is coming up, and every reply is built only from the material you supplied and what you told it in the chat. The output is for you alone: an honest inventory and a draft you can defend, and it never rates you, compares you with colleagues or predicts a promotion decision.

The machine-readable zone

Page 3 of 4
PAPHASELF<REVIEW<COACH<<SELF<REVIEW<COACH<<<SELFREVIE4PHA2609289F2609289V01C02I02L00Y<70

The real passport format, with real check digits, computed from this file.

Read it field by field
L1 1-2PADocument type. P for passport, A for the read-notify envelope.
L1 3-5PHAIssuing authority. This site checked the format and stored the file.
L1 6-44SELF<REVIEW<COACH<<SELF<REVIEW<COACH<<<The name field: the identifier, then the title, split by a double filler.
L2 1-10SELFREVIE4The identifier, and its check digit.
L2 11-13PHAIssuing authority again, where a passport carries the bearer’s nationality. An agent has none.
L2 14-202609289Issued 2026-09-28, and its check digit.
L2 21FCapture path: file.
L2 22-282609289Checked 2026-09-28, and its check digit.
L2 29-43V01C02I02L00Y<7Spec version, 2 capabilities, 2 installable, 0 losses declared, owner confirmed.
L2 440Composite check digit over positions 1-10, 14-20 and 22-43. Positions 11-13, 21 and 44 are excluded, as ICAO 9303 excludes them.

Two lines of 44, in the ICAO 9303 TD3 field positions, with check digits computed on the 7-3-1 weighting. Every value is read off this passport. An agent has no nationality and no date of birth, so those positions carry the capture path and the date this file was checked instead, and the legend above says which is which.

Entry permissions

Page 4 of 4

What you will need

2required

  • Read the notes, goals, feedback, earlier reviews and competency framework you hand it, as uploads or from a folder you name
  • Reply to you in the conversation

Each one is an account or a permission on your own platform, and you grant it yourself when your assistant asks. This passport carries no credentials, and nothing is granted by reading this page. Declared only means the original agent had it and version 0.1 will not install it.

Read the notes, goals, feedback, earlier reviews and competency framework you hand it, as uploads or from a folder you name

Every claim in every reply has to cite a document; without your material there is nothing to take stock of

Requirement: Required

If you skip it: It can only work from what you type in the chat, cites all of it as your own unbacked statements, and flags nearly every achievement as needing support

Installable in v0.1: yes

GrantedRequired

Reply to you in the conversation

The evidence inventory, the questions, the mapping and the draft all arrive as chat replies

Requirement: Required

If you skip it: Nothing reaches you

Installable in v0.1: yes

GrantedRequired

Granted means version 0.1 will install that capability. Not granted means it is named here, and left out, so you can see what the original could do that your copy will not.

Checked 2026-09-28 against rules 0.1.0 presented 39 times before this

01Evidence

One golden example, copied from the passport.

Golden examples are what the passport offers as evidence that the agent does what it says. Your rebuild is checked against these. This site checked the file's format, not the truth of its examples.

No elision and no replacements: the block is the whole reply, byte for byte. It is a template of shape, never expected content: the installer runs this on their own material, and different content is the correct result. It is a first reply, the only kind of reply the original had saved; no reply of the mapping, draft or verdict kind was saved, so those shapes are described in section 3 from the rules that produce them.

> This reply predates the owner's stated grouping. It groups the Evidence inventory by how well-backed each item is (documented, then self-reported); the owner has since said the first stock-take groups material by kind of document (notes, goals, feedback, earlier reviews), as the instructions say. Its grouping is not the shape to copy; its headings, tags, citations, question count and next steps are. The material behind it was invented test input the owner supplied, not anyone's real record, so the role, names, products and figures in it are sample content. > > Slot-bound values this example instantiated: the review period came from the person's first message, since none was set; no framework was given, so the inventory says it will map to goals; the evidence was one uploaded file of running notes and collected feedback (S1) plus the person's own message (S2); no folder, no excluded files and no off-limits topics were set. Tone and length play no part in a first reply. No declared-only capability rendered anything.

Captured 2026-09-27:

## Evidence inventory **Review Period:** October 2025 to September 2026 [S2]. **Framework:** No competency framework was provided in the sources. We will initially map evidence to the goals and activities documented in your notes [S1]. **Documented Evidence (from running notes [S1]):** * **Team Leadership:** Took over the mobile checkout squad (6 engineers, 1 designer) in Nov 2025 [S1]. Tag: documented. * **Product Delivery (Mobile):** Shipped Apple Pay in Jan 2026. Mobile checkout conversion increased from 61% to 66% in the four weeks post-launch [S1]. Tag: documented. * **Experimentation:** Ran a pricing page experiment with growth in Feb 2026. Results were noisy; unsure if it moved metrics [S1]. Tag: documented (but inconclusive). * **Discovery & Strategy:** Led B2B invoicing discovery (Mar-May 2026), conducted 14 customer interviews, and wrote the opportunity doc [S1]. Tag: documented. * **Project Management/Estimation:** Invoicing MVP delayed by 5 weeks in Jun 2026 due to underestimating tax logic [S1]. Tag: documented. * **Cross-functional Support:** Helped support team cut backlog in Aug 2026 [S1]. Tag: documented (vague on scope/impact). * **Communication:** Produced weekly written squad updates in Notion every Friday throughout the period [S1]. Tag: documented. * **Feedback (Design):** Mira (design lead, Mar 2026) praised the discovery process and interview synthesis [S1]. Tag: documented. * **Feedback (Engineering):** Tom (eng lead, July 2026) noted estimates need more buffer and earlier engineering involvement in scoping [S1]. Tag: documented. **Self-Reported Evidence (from chat [S2]):** * User is a Product Manager preparing for an annual review [S2]. Tag: self-reported. ## Reflective questions 1. **Mobile Checkout Success:** Your notes show Apple Pay shipped in Jan 2026 and conversion rose from 61% to 66% [S1]. What was your specific role in driving this outcome? Did you define the success metrics, or was the lift primarily engineering-led? 2. **Pricing Experiment Ambiguity:** You ran a pricing page experiment in Feb 2026 but noted the results were noisy [S1]. What was the hypothesis? Did you analyze the data further, or is there a conclusion you can draw now about what the experiment taught you about our pricing sensitivity? 3. **B2B Invoicing Discovery:** You led discovery for B2B invoicing (Mar-May 2026) and wrote the opportunity doc [S1]. What was the key insight from the 14 customer interviews that shaped the product direction? How did this doc influence the subsequent MVP scope? 4. **Estimation & Delays:** The invoicing MVP was delayed by 5 weeks due to tax logic complexity [S1]. Tom’s feedback also highlighted a need for earlier engineering involvement [S1]. How have you adjusted your scoping process since June 2026 to mitigate this risk in future projects? 5. **Support Team Contribution:** You helped the support team cut their backlog in Aug 2026 [S1]. What was your specific contribution? Was it product changes, process improvements, or data analysis? What was the measurable impact on the backlog size or resolution time? 6. **Communication Consistency:** You maintained weekly Notion updates all year [S1]. Did you receive any feedback on the clarity or usefulness of these updates? Are there specific stakeholders who found them particularly valuable? 7. **Learning & Growth:** Mira praised your discovery process [S1]. What specific techniques or frameworks did you use that she found useful? How do you plan to apply this to other areas of product management? ## What to do next 1. **Clarify Ambiguous Contributions:** Provide more detail on the "pricing page experiment" and "support team backlog" items. We need to know your specific role and any measurable outcomes to accurately reflect these in your review. 2. **Gather Additional Feedback:** If possible, seek brief feedback from the engineering team (beyond Tom's July comment) regarding your collaboration on the mobile checkout and invoicing projects. This will help balance the narrative around estimation and scoping. 3. **Define Framework Criteria:** If your organization has a specific competency framework for Product Managers, please provide it. If not, we will proceed by mapping your achievements to standard PM competencies (e.g., Execution, Discovery, Stakeholder Management) based on the evidence we have. 4. **Review Period Confirmation:** Confirm that the period October 2025 to September 2026 is correct and that there are no other significant projects or goals outside these notes that you wish to include.
02Install

Pick where you are installing, then paste the block into that assistant.

You get one branch, not all four. The other options stay available if you picked wrong.

Building the block for this platform.