Peer feedback that's specific enough to be useful.

360 reviews produce two kinds of garbage: people who write "great teammate, no notes" (useless) and people who write a novel (unread). The problem isn't effort — it's that recalling 6 months of working with someone from memory is genuinely hard.

Real response comparison

Without AI

"Great to work with. Very smart. No real feedback." (from 7 out of 8 reviewers)

~5 min

With Pluck + AI

Specific examples tied to real projects — what the person did well, where they could grow, with enough detail that the feedback is actionable.

~10 sec

How AI changes this

If the reviewer's AI has access to shared context — projects, PRs, docs — it can draft specific feedback grounded in actual work. Without tool access, Pluck's probes do the heavy lifting: "Can you give an example?" "What project are you thinking of?" The reviewer goes from staring at a blank box to editing a concrete draft.

How it works

1You create the form — add fields and follow-up probesyou

2Share the URL — drop it in Slack, email, or a docyou

3Respondent opens it in browser OR hands it to their AIthem

4Probes nudge shallow answers deeper — "can you be specific?"them

5Or their AI pre-fills from context (tickets, docs, conversations)AI

6You get specific, actionable responses in your dashboardyou

Example fields

Person you're reviewing
What they do well (with examples)
Where they could grow
Would you want to work with them again on a hard project?
Anything else

Follow-up probes

When an answer is too short, Pluck nudges the respondent to go deeper.

What they do well

▸Can you give a specific example?

▸What was the impact?

Where they could grow

▸When did you last notice this?

▸What would "better" look like?

Who this is for

People teams, managers running review cycles, anyone collecting peer feedback across a growing org.

Try Pluck for 360 reviews

Free to start. Create your first form in 2 minutes.