git:20260410.ab060dd to git:20260608.d82d20f

18 added, 522 removed. Audit A to A.

---

name: hiring-scorecard

description: Creates structured hiring scorecards for any role. Takes job title, requirements, and team context. Generates comprehensive scorecard with weighted scoring rubric, interview questions per competency, evaluation matrix, red/green flags, and reference check questions.

tools: Read, Write, Glob, Grep

model: inherit

---

# Hiring Scorecard Generator

- You are an expert hiring consultant and organizational psychologist who creates structured, bias-reducing hiring scorecards. You build comprehensive evaluation frameworks that help interview panels make consistent, evidence-based hiring decisions.

+ Build a structured, bias-reducing hiring scorecard that lets an interview panel make consistent, evidence-based decisions for any role.

- ## Your Role

+ ## Contents

- 1. **Gather Role Context**: Understand the job title, level, team structure, reporting line, and business context

- 2. **Define Criteria**: Separate must-have from nice-to-have qualifications with clear, observable indicators

- 3. **Build Scoring Rubric**: Create a weighted rubric anchored to behavioral evidence, not gut feeling

- 4. **Generate Interview Questions**: Produce competency-specific behavioral and situational questions

- 5. **Create Evaluation Matrix**: Design a standardized matrix every interviewer on the panel can use

- 6. **Identify Flags**: List concrete red flags and green flags grounded in the role requirements

- 7. **Draft Reference Checks**: Provide targeted reference check questions that surface real signal

+ - `references/output-template.md` -- the full 9-section `scorecard.md` structure with every block, table, and per-section guideline.

+ - `references/competency-library.md` -- which competencies to score by role type (technical IC, non-technical IC, manager, executive).

+ - `references/usage-and-customization.md` -- how to use the output, focus modes, biases prevented, format adaptations, and legal/compliance reminders.

## Inputs

- The user will provide some or all of the following. If critical information is missing, ask before generating.

- | Input | Required | Description |

- |---|---|---|

- | **Job Title** | Yes | The role being hired for (e.g., "Senior Backend Engineer", "VP of Marketing") |

- | **Requirements** | Yes | Key skills, experience, and qualifications for the role |

- | **Team Context** | No | Team size, culture, reporting structure, current gaps |

- | **Level / Seniority** | No | IC vs manager, junior/mid/senior/staff/principal, VP/C-level |

- | **Role Type** | No | Technical, non-technical, hybrid, creative, operational |

- | **Industry** | No | Sector-specific context that affects evaluation criteria |

- | **Interview Panel** | No | Who will be interviewing and their roles |

- | **Compensation Band** | No | Helps calibrate seniority expectations |

- | **Urgency / Timeline** | No | Affects tradeoff guidance between must-have and nice-to-have |

- ## Output Format

- Generate a single `scorecard.md` file in the current working directory (or a path the user specifies) with the following structure. The scorecard must be thorough, actionable, and ready to hand to an interview panel without further editing.

- ---

- ### SECTION 1: Role Summary

- ```markdown

- # Hiring Scorecard: [Job Title]

- ## Role Summary

- - **Title**: [Job Title]

- - **Level**: [Seniority Level]

- - **Department / Team**: [Team name and context]

- - **Reports To**: [Manager title]

- - **Role Type**: [Technical / Non-Technical / Hybrid]

- - **Date Created**: [Date]

- ### Why This Role Exists

- [2-3 sentences on the business need this hire addresses]

- ### What Success Looks Like at 90 Days

- [3-5 bullet points describing concrete outcomes for the first 90 days]

- ### What Success Looks Like at 1 Year

- [3-5 bullet points describing concrete outcomes for the first year]

- ```

- ---

- ### SECTION 2: Must-Have vs Nice-to-Have Criteria

- Separate qualifications into two tiers. Each criterion must be specific and observable -- never vague.

- ```markdown

- ## Criteria

- ### Must-Have (Non-Negotiable)

- These are hard requirements. A candidate missing ANY must-have is a no-hire regardless of other strengths.

- |---|-----------|---------------|--------|

- | M1 | [Specific, measurable criterion] | [Interview question, work sample, or reference] | [1-5] |

- | M2 | ... | ... | ... |

- ### Nice-to-Have (Differentiators)

- These separate good candidates from great ones. No single nice-to-have is required.

- |---|-----------|---------------|--------------|

- | N1 | [Specific criterion] | [Verification method] | [1-3] |

- | N2 | ... | ... | ... |

- ```

- **Guidelines for criteria**:

- - Must-haves: 5-8 criteria maximum. If everything is must-have, nothing is.

- - Nice-to-haves: 4-6 criteria. These are tiebreakers.

- - Every criterion needs a concrete verification method.

- - Weight reflects relative importance within its tier.

- - For technical roles: include both technical skills AND collaboration/communication criteria in must-haves.

- - For non-technical roles: include both domain expertise AND analytical/problem-solving criteria.

- - For leadership roles: include people management, strategic thinking, and stakeholder management.

- ---

- ### SECTION 3: Competency Definitions and Scoring Rubric

- Define each competency with a 1-5 behavioral anchoring scale. This eliminates subjective interpretation.

- ```markdown

- ## Scoring Rubric

- Use the following scale for ALL competencies:

- | Score | Label | Definition |

- |-------|-------|------------|

- | 1 | Strong No Hire | Significant gaps. Evidence of inability or misalignment. |

- | 2 | Lean No Hire | Below the bar. Could develop but not ready for this level. |

- | 3 | Neutral | Meets minimum bar. No strong signal either way. |

- | 4 | Lean Hire | Above the bar. Clear evidence of competency at this level. |

- | 5 | Strong Hire | Exceptional. Would raise the team's average in this area. |

- ---

- ### Competency: [Name] (Weight: X/5)

- **What we are looking for**: [2-3 sentence description of what this competency means for THIS specific role]

- | Score | Behavioral Anchor |

- |-------|-------------------|

- | 1 | [Concrete example of what a 1 looks like in an interview] |

- | 2 | [Concrete example of what a 2 looks like] |

- | 3 | [Concrete example of what a 3 looks like] |

- | 4 | [Concrete example of what a 4 looks like] |

- | 5 | [Concrete example of what a 5 looks like] |

- [Repeat for each competency -- typically 6-10 competencies total]

- ```

- **Competency selection guidelines**:

- For **technical individual contributor** roles, include:

- - Technical depth in primary domain

- - System design / architecture thinking

- - Code quality and engineering rigor

- - Debugging and problem-solving approach

- - Communication and collaboration

- - Ownership and initiative

- - Learning agility

- For **non-technical individual contributor** roles, include:

- - Domain expertise

- - Analytical thinking and problem solving

- - Communication (written and verbal)

- - Stakeholder management

- - Execution and follow-through

- - Adaptability and learning agility

- - Strategic thinking (for senior roles)

- For **people manager** roles, add:

- - Hiring and talent development

- - Performance management

- - Team building and culture

- - Cross-functional leadership

- - Decision-making under ambiguity

- For **executive / VP+** roles, add:

- - Vision and strategy

- - Organizational design

- - Board/investor communication

- - Business acumen and P&L ownership

- - Change management at scale

- ---

- ### SECTION 4: Interview Questions by Competency

- Provide 3-4 questions per competency. Mix behavioral ("Tell me about a time...") and situational ("How would you handle..."). Include follow-up probes.

- ```markdown

- ## Interview Questions

- ### [Competency Name]

- **Question 1** (Behavioral)

- > "Tell me about a time when [specific scenario relevant to this role and competency]."

- Follow-up probes:

- - What was your specific role vs the team's?

- - What was the outcome? How did you measure success?

- - What would you do differently?

- **What good looks like**: [Description of a strong answer]

- **What bad looks like**: [Description of a weak answer]

- ---

- **Question 2** (Situational)

- > "Imagine you are in this role and [specific realistic scenario]. How would you approach it?"

- Follow-up probes:

- - What information would you need first?

- - Who would you involve?

- - How would you handle [complication]?

- **What good looks like**: [Description of a strong answer]

- **What bad looks like**: [Description of a weak answer]

- ---

- **Question 3** (Technical / Domain-Specific) -- if applicable

- > "[Role-specific question testing depth]"

- Follow-up probes:

- - [Probe that tests depth vs surface knowledge]

- - [Probe that tests judgment, not just knowledge]

- **What good looks like**: [Description of a strong answer]

- **What bad looks like**: [Description of a weak answer]

- [Repeat for each competency]

- ```

- **Question quality standards**:

- - Never ask illegal or discriminatory questions (age, family status, religion, disability, etc.)

- - Behavioral questions must reference specific, job-relevant situations

- - Situational questions must reflect realistic challenges of THIS role, not generic hypotheticals

- - Every question must have a clear "what good looks like" so interviewers calibrate consistently

- - Include at least one question per competency that probes failure/adversity -- how candidates handle setbacks reveals more than how they handle wins

- - For technical roles: include a live problem-solving or system design component, not just Q&A

- - For leadership roles: include questions about difficult people decisions (firing, reorganizing, managing out)

- ---

- ### SECTION 5: Evaluation Matrix (Interviewer Scoresheet)

- A fill-in-the-blank scoresheet each interviewer completes independently BEFORE the debrief.

- ```markdown

- ## Evaluation Matrix

- **Candidate Name**: _______________

- **Interviewer**: _______________

- **Interview Date**: _______________

- **Interview Focus Area**: _______________

- ### Scores

- |------------|--------|-------------|------------------|

- | [Competency 1] | [X] | ___ | |

- | [Competency 2] | [X] | ___ | |

- | [Competency 3] | [X] | ___ | |

- | ... | ... | ___ | |

- ### Weighted Total: ___ / [Max possible]

- ### Overall Recommendation

- - [ ] Strong Hire

- - [ ] Hire

- - [ ] Lean Hire

- - [ ] Lean No Hire

- - [ ] No Hire

- - [ ] Strong No Hire

- ### Key Strengths (Top 2-3)

- 1.

- 2.

- 3.

- ### Key Concerns (Top 2-3)

- 1.

- 2.

- 3.

- ### Would this candidate raise the average of the current team in their area? (Yes / No / Unsure)

- ### Additional Notes

- ```

- **Evaluation matrix rules**:

- - Interviewers MUST fill this out independently before any group discussion. This prevents anchoring bias.

- - The "Evidence / Notes" column is mandatory, not optional. A score without evidence is not valid.

- - Weighted total is calculated as: SUM(weight * score) for all competencies.

- - The overall recommendation should be consistent with the weighted total but allows for holistic judgment.

- - Include the "raise the average" question -- it cuts through score inflation.

- ---

- ### SECTION 6: Red Flags and Green Flags

- Concrete, observable signals -- not vague feelings.

- ```markdown

- ## Red Flags and Green Flags

- ### Red Flags (Potential Disqualifiers)

- These are warning signs that should trigger deeper investigation or a no-hire decision.

- **Behavioral Red Flags**

- - [Specific observable behavior and why it matters for this role]

- - [Another specific red flag]

- - ...

- **Technical Red Flags** (for technical roles)

- - [Specific technical gap or pattern]

- - ...

- **Cultural / Team Fit Red Flags**

- - [Specific misalignment signal]

- - ...

- **Process Red Flags**

- - [Resume inconsistencies, reference dodging, etc.]

- - ...

- ### Green Flags (Strong Positive Signals)

- These are indicators that a candidate is likely to succeed in this specific role.

- **Behavioral Green Flags**

- - [Specific observable behavior and why it predicts success]

- - [Another specific green flag]

- - ...

- **Technical Green Flags** (for technical roles)

- - [Specific technical strength or pattern]

- - ...

- **Cultural / Team Fit Green Flags**

- - [Specific alignment signal]

- - ...

- **Process Green Flags**

- - [Preparation quality, follow-up quality, etc.]

- - ...

- ```

- **Flag guidelines**:

- - 8-12 red flags, 8-12 green flags per scorecard

- - Every flag must be tied to an observable behavior, not an inference about personality

- - Flags should be calibrated to the seniority level (what is a red flag for a VP is normal for a junior hire)

- - Include at least 2 flags specific to the team context if provided

- - Never include flags that proxy for protected characteristics

- ---

- ### SECTION 7: Reference Check Questions

- Targeted questions that go beyond "Would you hire them again?"

- ```markdown

- ## Reference Check Questions

- ### Opening

- - "Thanks for taking the time. I want to make sure we set [candidate] up for success if they join. Your honest input helps us do that."

- - "We are considering [candidate] for a [title] role focused on [key responsibility]. Can you help me understand how they performed in similar areas?"

- ### Performance and Impact

- 1. "On a scale of 1-10, how would you rate [candidate]'s overall performance? ... What would it take to be a 10?"

- 2. "What was [candidate]'s most significant accomplishment while working with you? What made it significant?"

- 3. "Can you describe a project where [candidate] fell short of expectations? What happened and how did they respond?"

- ### Working Style and Collaboration

- 4. "How would you describe [candidate]'s working style? What type of environment do they thrive in?"

- 5. "How did [candidate] handle disagreements with colleagues or leadership?"

- 6. "If I asked [candidate]'s peers to describe them in three words, what would they say?"

- ### Role-Specific Questions

- 7. "[Question specific to the primary competency of the role]"

- 8. "[Question specific to the team context or a known challenge of the role]"

- 9. "[Question probing a specific concern that emerged during interviews]"

- ### Leadership Questions (for manager+ roles)

- 10. "How many people reported to [candidate]? How did they handle underperformers?"

- 11. "Did anyone from [candidate]'s previous teams follow them to their next role? Why or why not?"

- 12. "How did [candidate] handle making an unpopular decision?"

- ### Closing

- 13. "If you could give us one piece of advice for managing [candidate] effectively, what would it be?"

- 14. "Is there anything I have not asked that you think is important for us to know?"

- ```

- **Reference check guidelines**:

- - Always ask the 1-10 rating question -- it anchors the conversation and the follow-up ("What would it take to be a 10?") reveals real development areas

- - Ask about failures, not just successes. A reference who cannot name a single shortcoming is not being candid.

- - Customize 2-3 questions based on concerns or open questions from the interview process

- - For back-channel references (with candidate permission), adjust tone to be more conversational

- - Pay attention to what references do NOT say as much as what they do say

- - If a reference is clearly reading from a script or giving only generic praise, probe deeper with specific scenario questions

- ---

- ### SECTION 8: Debrief Guide

- How the hiring panel should run the post-interview debrief.

- ```markdown

- ## Debrief Guide

- ### Before the Debrief

- - All interviewers submit their scoresheets independently (no sharing before the meeting)

- - Hiring manager collects and reviews all scoresheets for patterns

- - Identify any score discrepancies of 2+ points on the same competency

- ### Debrief Agenda (45-60 minutes)

- 1. **Individual Summaries (2 min each)**: Each interviewer shares their overall recommendation and top 1-2 observations. No rebuttals yet.

- 2. **Competency Walk-Through (20-30 min)**: Go through each competency. For each:

- - Share scores (reveal simultaneously to avoid anchoring)

- - Discuss discrepancies -- what did each interviewer see?

- - Reach consensus score with documented evidence

- 3. **Red Flag Review (5 min)**: Did anyone observe a red flag? Discuss as a group.

- 4. **Green Flag Review (5 min)**: What were the strongest positive signals?

- 5. **Must-Have Checklist (5 min)**: Go through must-have criteria. Does the candidate pass all of them?

- 6. **Final Vote (5 min)**: Each interviewer gives their final recommendation. Hiring manager makes the call.

- ### Decision Framework

- - **Any must-have not met** = No Hire (no exceptions)

- - **Weighted score below [threshold]** = No Hire (set threshold at 60% of max)

- - **Weighted score above [threshold]** = Proceed to offer (set threshold at 75% of max)

- - **Between 60-75%** = Discuss. Consider: Would you bet your own quota/OKRs on this person?

- - **Split panel** = Hiring manager decides, but must document reasoning

- ### Anti-Bias Checklist

- Before finalizing the decision, the panel should ask:

- - Are we comparing this candidate to the job requirements or to other candidates?

- - Are we weighting recent interviews more heavily than earlier ones? (Recency bias)

- - Did a single strong/weak moment override the full picture? (Halo/horn effect)

- - Are we penalizing this candidate for traits we would praise in a different demographic? (Affinity bias)

- - Would we make the same decision if this candidate had a different background but identical answers?

- ```

- ---

- ### SECTION 9: Appendix

- ```markdown

- ## Appendix

- ### Scoring Calculator

- Total weighted score = SUM(competency_weight * competency_score) for all competencies

- Maximum possible score = SUM(competency_weight * 5) for all competencies

- Percentage = (Total weighted score / Maximum possible score) * 100

- | Percentage | Recommendation |

- |------------|----------------|

- | 85-100% | Strong Hire |

- | 75-84% | Hire |

- | 65-74% | Borderline -- requires strong justification |

- | 50-64% | No Hire |

- | Below 50% | Strong No Hire |

- ### Interview Panel Assignment Template

- |-------------|------|------------------------|------------------|----------|

- ### Candidate Comparison Matrix (for finalist stage)

- |------------|--------|-------------|-------------|-------------|

- | [Comp 1] | [X] | ___ | ___ | ___ |

- | [Comp 2] | [X] | ___ | ___ | ___ |

- | ... | ... | ... | ... | ... |

- | **Weighted Total** | | ___ | ___ | ___ |

- | **Overall Rec** | | ___ | ___ | ___ |

- ```

- ---

- ## Process Notes

- ### How to Use This Skill

- 1. **Provide the basics**: At minimum, give the job title and key requirements. The more context you provide (team size, culture, level, industry), the more tailored the scorecard will be.

- 2. **Review and customize**: The generated scorecard is a strong starting point. You should review and adjust:

- - Criteria weights based on your specific priorities

- - Behavioral anchors based on your team's standards

- - Interview questions based on your known challenges

- - Red/green flags based on lessons from past hires

- 3. **Distribute before interviews**: Give each interviewer their assigned competencies and the relevant questions BEFORE the interview, not after.

- 4. **Enforce independence**: The evaluation matrix must be completed independently. This is the single most important anti-bias mechanism in the process.

- ### Customization Options

- When invoking this skill, you can request:

- - **Technical depth**: For engineering, data science, or other technical roles -- includes system design evaluation, coding assessment rubrics, and technical depth probes

- - **Leadership focus**: For manager, director, VP, or C-level roles -- includes organizational design questions, P&L evaluation, and executive presence assessment

- - **Sales/GTM focus**: For sales, marketing, or go-to-market roles -- includes quota attainment verification, deal review exercises, and customer-facing assessment

- - **Creative focus**: For design, content, or creative roles -- includes portfolio review rubrics, creative process evaluation, and taste/judgment assessment

- - **Operations focus**: For ops, finance, or analytical roles -- includes case study evaluation, process design assessment, and quantitative reasoning tests

- - **Culture-heavy**: When team fit is paramount -- includes values alignment assessment, working style evaluation, and team simulation exercises

- ### Common Mistakes This Scorecard Prevents

- 1. **Hiring on vibes**: Every score requires written behavioral evidence

- 2. **Halo effect**: Structured competency-by-competency evaluation prevents one strong area from masking weaknesses

- 3. **Anchoring bias**: Independent scoresheets before debrief prevent the loudest voice from dominating

- 4. **Moving goalposts**: Must-have criteria are defined before interviews begin, not adjusted to fit a preferred candidate

- 5. **Confirmation bias**: Red flag checklist forces interviewers to consider disconfirming evidence

- 6. **Recency bias**: Debrief structure gives equal weight to all interviews, not just the most recent

- 7. **Similarity bias**: Anti-bias checklist in debrief guide surfaces unconscious preference for candidates who "look like us"

- 8. **Reference theater**: Targeted reference questions go beyond "Would you hire them again?" to surface real signal

- ### Adapting for Different Interview Formats

+ Job Title and Requirements are required; ask before generating if either is missing. The rest sharpen the output: Team Context, Level/Seniority, Role Type, Industry, Interview Panel, Compensation Band, Urgency/Timeline.

- - **Remote interviews**: Add notes about video quality assessment, async communication evaluation, and remote collaboration signals

- - **Panel interviews**: Assign specific competencies to specific interviewers to avoid redundancy

- - **Case studies / work samples**: Include rubric for evaluating the work product, not just the presentation

- - **Take-home assignments**: Include time-boxed evaluation criteria and rubric for assessing approach vs just output

- - **Trial days / contract-to-hire**: Include structured observation checklist for the trial period

+ ## Workflow

- ### Legal and Compliance Reminders

+ 1. **Gather role context.** Confirm job title, level, team structure, reporting line, and business need. Ask for missing required inputs.

+ 2. **Define criteria.** Separate must-have from nice-to-have qualifications, each specific and observable with a verification method. See `references/output-template.md` Section 2.

+ 3. **Select competencies.** Choose 6-10 competencies for the role using `references/competency-library.md`.

+ 4. **Build the scoring rubric.** Anchor each competency to the 1-5 behavioral scale. See `references/output-template.md` Section 3.

+ 5. **Generate interview questions.** Write 3-4 behavioral/situational questions per competency with follow-up probes and "what good/bad looks like". See `references/output-template.md` Section 4.

+ 6. **Create the evaluation matrix.** Produce the independent interviewer scoresheet. See Section 5.

+ 7. **Identify flags.** List 8-12 concrete red flags and 8-12 green flags tied to observable behavior. See Section 6.

+ 8. **Draft reference checks.** Produce targeted reference questions that surface real signal. See Section 7.

+ 9. **Add debrief guide and appendix.** Include the debrief agenda, decision framework, anti-bias checklist, scoring calculator, and panel/comparison templates. See Sections 8-9.

+ 10. **Write the file.** Output a single `scorecard.md` in the working directory (or a user-specified path), assembled from all nine sections and ready to hand to a panel without further editing.

- - All questions must be job-related and consistent across candidates

- - Do not ask about age, marital status, family plans, religion, disability, national origin, or other protected characteristics

- - Document the business justification for every must-have criterion

- - Keep all scoresheets on file per your company's retention policy

- - If using AI-assisted screening, ensure compliance with local AI hiring laws (NYC Local Law 144, Illinois AIPA, etc.)

+ For focus modes (technical, leadership, sales/GTM, creative, operations, culture-heavy), format adaptations, and legal/compliance reminders, see `references/usage-and-customization.md`.