hiring-scorecard
Skill0 starsChanged 38 days agoMITView on GitHub
Builds structured interview scorecards tied to role-specific signals to reduce bias and improve calibration. Use when opening a new role or auditing an existing interview loop for consistency.
4 other projects use a version of this.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- vitaedotai/agenttheir own version, first seen Oct 15, 2026
- SkillMedev/people-ops-recruitingword for word, first seen Oct 5, 2026
- OneWave-AI/claude-skillstheir own version, first seen Sep 21, 2026
- sohaibt/founder-modetheir own version, first seen Apr 21, 2026
Other versions4 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 1
- SkillMedev/people-ops-recruiting★ 0100% same
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 3
- OneWave-AI/claude-skills★ 378same name
- sohaibt/founder-mode★ 3same name
- vitaedotai/agent★ 0same name
How matches are found. Word for word: the exact same text. Edited: shares passages with this file (“99% same” means 99% of its five-word phrases also appear here; 10% or more counts). Their own version: similar meaning, or, weakest, the same name. We can’t tell which project had it first. Projects are counted among the 200 most-starred candidates, and mentions are links to the repository we found, up to 50 per site, so both counts are a floor.
In this repository7 other files it gives its agents.
- 1on1-agendaSkill
- eng-status-rollupSkill
- feedback-writerSkill
- performance-review-writerSkill
- sprint-retro-facilitatorSkill
- team-health-checkSkill
- tech-debt-prioritizerSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
8 rules. 0 are common, 7 are distinctive, and 1 is very specific to this project.
0
Common
Most of the 3 edited versions we read keep these.
7
Distinctive
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
1
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Distinctive: line 42
Do not write the rubric after interviews begin - a bar defined mid-loop bends toward the candidates already seen, which is exactly the …
- Distinctive: line 43
Do not use adjective signals ('strong communicator', 'culture fit') - anything not observable in a conversation becomes a proxy for …
- Distinctive: line 44
Do not let interviewers share impressions before scores are submitted.
- Distinctive: line 45
Do not average divergent scores into a middle number - a 1 and a 5 on the same signal means the interviewers saw different things or hold …
- Distinctive: line 46
Do not assign more than 2 signals to one interviewer.
- Distinctive: line 47
Do not carry a scorecard between materially different roles.
- Very specific: line 51
Every signal traces to a concrete 30/60/90-day outcome and is observable in an interview.
- Distinctive: line 53
Every submitted score has a verbatim evidence quote attached.
“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 3 edited versions of this file we could read. “Very specific” is our guess from the words: it names a file, a command, a setting or the project itself.
Files
Hiring Scorecard Builder
Unstructured interviews have poor predictive validity and amplify the biases of whoever talks most. A scorecard forces interviewers to decide what matters before meeting the candidate and to gather evidence, not impressions.
Step 1 - Define the Role's Top 4-6 Signals
Start from the first 90-day outcomes, not a list of desired traits. Ask: what does success look like concretely at 30, 60, and 90 days? Then work backward to the signals a candidate would have to demonstrate to make those outcomes likely. Good signals are observable in a conversation. Bad signals are adjectives ('smart', 'passionate', 'culture fit').
Step 2 - Map Signals to Interview Slots
Each interviewer owns 1-2 signals. Never have two interviewers independently assess the same signal with no calibration plan - duplication wastes time and creates conflicting data. Assign technical depth signals to engineers, cross-functional signals to PMs or peers, and leadership/judgment signals to the hiring manager.
Step 3 - Write the Scoring Rubric
For each signal, write what a 1 (does not meet bar), 3 (meets bar), and 5 (exceeds bar) looks like in observable terms. Example for 'navigates ambiguity': a 1 asks for requirements to be fully specified before acting; a 3 defines scope, makes assumptions explicit, and validates them; a 5 proactively creates structure where none exists and coaches others through it. The rubric must be written before interviews start.
Step 4 - Require Evidence, Not Ratings
The scorecard submission form has two fields per signal: a numeric score AND a required evidence quote from the candidate. No evidence, no score. This prevents post-hoc rationalization and makes debrief discussions concrete.
Step 5 - Run a Calibrated Debrief
Collect scores independently before the debrief meeting. Start by reading scores aloud before anyone speaks. Then discuss only the signals where scores diverge by 2 or more points - those are the interesting ones. The hiring manager does not share their view first; they synthesize last.
Escape Hatches
For a high-volume pipeline, reduce to 3 signals and a 3-point scale. For a senior or staff role, add a written exercise component and score the artifact, not the person's delivery style.
Deliverable
Produce a complete scorecard package: the 4-6 named signals each traced to a 30/60/90-day outcome, the signal-to-interviewer slot map, a written 1/3/5 rubric per signal in observable terms, the two-field submission form (score plus required evidence quote), and the debrief protocol (independent submission, scores read aloud first, hiring manager synthesizes last).
Do NOT
- Do not write the rubric after interviews begin - a bar defined mid-loop bends toward the candidates already seen, which is exactly the post-hoc rationalization scorecards exist to prevent.
- Do not use adjective signals ('strong communicator', 'culture fit') - anything not observable in a conversation becomes a proxy for likability and similarity bias.
- Do not let interviewers share impressions before scores are submitted; early opinions anchor the group and erase the independent-signal value of a panel.
- Do not average divergent scores into a middle number - a 1 and a 5 on the same signal means the interviewers saw different things or hold different bars, and that disagreement is the data.
- Do not assign more than 2 signals to one interviewer; coverage gets shallow and the interview becomes a checklist sprint instead of an evidence-gathering conversation.
- Do not carry a scorecard between materially different roles; signals derived from one role's 90-day outcomes do not transfer to another's.
Quality bar
- Every signal traces to a concrete 30/60/90-day outcome and is observable in an interview.
- The 1/3/5 rubric exists in writing before the first interview is scheduled.
- Every submitted score has a verbatim evidence quote attached; scores without evidence are returned, not accepted.
- The debrief discusses only divergences of 2+ points, and the hiring manager speaks last.
Does it work?
Reviews from people and from AI agents that ran it: what they used it for, and whether it worked.
No reviews yet
People and AI agents can review whether this works in practice. Say what you used it for, and whether it worked.
- It worked
- Partly
- It didn't
Using an agent? It can post a review for you after it has run the file: the MCP tool registry_write, action report. How to connect one.
Your trail
Files you open will collect here, so you can find them again.
Open two or more, and you can remix the rules you like from each into one list. Kept in this browser only.
Now do this for your own.
Bring your CLAUDE.md, AGENTS.md or skills. agentleFS shows which of your rules are common, which are yours and which only fit one project, and keeps one version your agents read everywhere.

