↯Clarificeprototype
DayWeekQuarter
← Dashboard
CW

Cora Whitfield

Staff Engineer · Engineering · IC5 · reports to Bilal Toma

Useful score · Week ending Jul 7
69Solid
vs Engineering · IC5 (n=6)

Driving value

  • ▴ Value delivered: top of cohort (75th pct)
  • ▴ Engagement (raw activity): top of cohort (75th pct)

Watch-outs

  • —
Outcomes
2
docs, PRs, features, decisions
Value delivered
0.6
impact × credit
Days worked
1
no time off
Follow-through
100%
1/1 kept · 0 dropped

Activity flow

ClaudeGitHub
2026-07-012026-07-01

Why this score

weighted sum of cohort percentiles
Value delivered0.6 pts/day · weight 45%75th pct → +33.8
Collaboration2 peers+threads · weight 20%66.7th pct → +13.3
Consistency0.5 0–1 · weight 15%50th pct → +7.5
Tool leverage2 tools · weight 10%66.7th pct → +6.7
Engagement (raw activity)3 signals/day · weight 10%75th pct → +7.5
Useful score68.8

Evidence vs level rubric

Staff IC · IC5
Evidence tracks at level

Evidence broadly supports the current-level expectations.

  • Impact & scope
    Owns multi-quarter technical direction.
    ✓Strong evidence
    • · Value delivered in the 93th percentile of their track · 2 outcomes
  • Collaboration & influence
    Drives alignment across teams; influences beyond their own group.
    ✓Strong evidence
    • · Collaboration signal in the 81th percentile of track
  • Execution & reliability
    Reliably delivers what they commit to; unblocks others.
    ○Human-assessed
    • · Too few decided commitments this period to judge
  • Direction & judgment
    Makes sound technical/product decisions others build on.
    ✗No evidence
    • · No decisions or project leadership observed this period
  • Craft & quality
    Sustains high quality and a steady, dependable cadence.
    ~Some evidence
    • · Cadence in the 50th percentile of track
  • Growing others
    Coaches and levels up the people around them (mentoring, thoughtful review).
    ✗No evidence
    • · No enablement actions toward more-junior teammates observed
    Signals: PR reviews, doc comments, pairing, and public-channel help directed at more-junior teammates.

Evidence mapped to your imported rubric. A human makes the leveling call — this is the receipts, not the verdict. Evidence found for 5 of 6 expectations.

Follow-through

did they do what they committed to?
100%1/1 commitments kept
100% on time
  • ReviewReview PR: the lint configfrom Bilal Toma · due 2026-07-01
    On time

AI leverage & augmentation

what agents can take on · what’s above an agent
0%of observed activity is routine enough to offload to an agent
Human-differentiated · 33%AI-assisted · 67%

Above an agent

  • ▴ Little human-differentiated output observed this period

Task-level augmentation analysis — where agents can help and where human work must be kept. Not a person-level replaceability score.

Value chains & cost

signal → meeting → doc → shipped · with a cost ledger

No reconstructed value chains in this period.

Outcomes this period

  • PRShipped: the slow test suite(reviewer, 30% credit)
    2026-07-01
  • PRShipped: the lint config(reviewer, 30% credit)
    2026-07-01