agentleFS
SkillMedevSkillMedev/people-ops-recruiting/skills/interview-question-kit/SKILL.md

interview-question-kit

Skill0 starsChanged 39 days agoMITView on GitHub

Generates a structured candidate-interview question set where every behavioral (STAR) and role-specific item maps to a defined competency and ships with strong/borderline/red-flag answer anchors plus delivery notes. Use when someone asks "write interview questions for this role", "build an interview loop", "turn this rubric into questions per interviewer", or is planning a hiring interview, building a question bank, or standardizing how a panel assesses candidates. Do NOT use to consolidate completed scorecards into a hire decision - use interview-debrief-synthesizer instead; do NOT use for user-research or customer discovery interviews - use interview-guide-builder instead; do NOT use to build the competency rubric or scorecard itself - use hiring-scorecard or screening-rubric-builder instead.

The file

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

8 rules. About 0 are common, 8 are distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.

  • ≈0

    Common · estimate

    Many files like this have a rule of this kind.

  • ≈8

    Distinctive · estimate

    This author's own choices. Worth a look.

  • 0

    Very specific

    Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.

  • Common
  • Distinctive
  • Very specific
  1. Distinctive:

    Do NOT generate questions touching age, family or marital status, pregnancy, religion, disability, health, national origin, or salary …

    line 80
  2. Distinctive:

    Do NOT write hypothetical "what would you do" questions where a past-behavior or work-sample item would yield real evidence.

    line 81
  3. Distinctive:

    Do NOT allow free-form, candidate-specific tangents that break comparability across candidates.

    line 82
  4. Distinctive:

    Do NOT assess anything outside the defined, job-relevant competencies - "culture fit" without a defined competency is bias with a nicer …

    line 83
  5. Distinctive:

    Do NOT issue a verdict, ranking, or hire/no-hire call.

    line 84
  6. Distinctive:

    Do NOT overload a session - more than 4 behavioral items in 45 minutes guarantees shallow answers on all of them.

    line 85
  7. Distinctive:

    Every question traces to exactly one competency on the rubric.

    line 89
  8. Distinctive:

    Every question has all three anchors (strong, borderline, red flag), each tied to the competency.

    line 90

≈ “Common” is an estimate: at least 1 in 5 of the 350,495 skill files we read have a rule of the same kind, not the same words. “Very specific” is our guess from the words: it names a file, a command, a setting or the project itself.

Keep what fits and drop the rest. Your version, ready for your agents.
Files
SKILL.md

Interview Question Kit

Turn a role's competencies into a fair, comparable question set with per-question scoring anchors, so interviewers assess evidence instead of rapport. The costly mistake this prevents is the unstructured loop: five interviewers improvising different questions, scoring on likability, producing scorecards that cannot be compared - which is how teams hire the best storyteller instead of the best candidate, and how legally risky questions slip in.

Operating procedure

Order matters: questions written before the competency map exist to sound clever, not to gather evidence.

Step 1: Gather the rubric

Collect the role's defined, job-relevant competencies and their weights, plus the job description, loop size (how many interviewers, how long each session), and seniority level. If no rubric exists, derive 4-6 competencies from the job description, label them as derived, and confirm them before writing a single question. Never write a question that does not map to a competency on this list.

Step 2: Allocate competencies across the loop

Assign each competency to one or two interviewers who probe it deeply, rather than every interviewer skimming all of them - overlap wastes candidate time and produces shallow, redundant evidence. Write 2-3 items per competency.

Step 3: Write behavioral items in STAR form

Ask for specific past situations ("Tell me about a time you shipped under a hard deadline with incomplete requirements"), not hypotheticals - past behavior is evidence; hypotheticals are performance. For each item, list follow-up probes that separately pull out Situation, Task, Action, and Result, because candidates default to narrating the team's work instead of their own. The probe "What did you do, specifically?" earns its place in every kit.

Step 4: Add a role-specific work sample

Pair behavioral items with a short, realistic job task: a design discussion, a code reading, a mock customer email, a prioritization exercise. Keep it role-true, time-boxed, and identical across candidates. At least one work-sample item per loop.

Step 5: Write strong/borderline/red-flag anchors for every item

Spell out what a strong answer demonstrates, what a borderline answer looks like, and the red flags - tied to the competency, not to likability. Anchors are what make two interviewers' scores comparable.

Step 6: Standardize delivery

Specify question order, time budget per item, and which follow-ups are allowed, so the same role gets the same loop every time. A 45-60 minute session realistically fits 3-4 behavioral items with probes, or 2 items plus a work sample - more than that produces surface answers.

Step 7: Screen for compliance

Remove or rewrite any item a candidate could reasonably read as probing a protected characteristic: age, family or marital status, pregnancy, religion, disability, health, national origin - and salary history where restricted. Do this as a final pass on the full set, because risky questions often emerge from innocent-sounding "culture" items.

Worked artifact: one kit entry (copy this structure per item)

COMPETENCY: Ownership under ambiguity (weight: 25%)
INTERVIEWER: [FILL: name] - Session 2 of 4 (45 min; this item: 12 min)

QUESTION (behavioral, STAR):
"Tell me about a time you were handed a project with unclear requirements
and a fixed deadline. Walk me through what happened."

PROBES (use as needed, in order):
- Situation: "What was the context - team size, what was at stake?"
- Task: "What specifically were you responsible for, versus the team?"
- Action: "What did YOU do first? What did you decide not to do?"
- Result: "How did it land? What would you do differently?"

ANCHORS:
- Strong: names the ambiguity explicitly, describes how they scoped or
  de-risked it themselves (stakeholder alignment, cutting scope, spike),
  owns a concrete personal action, states a measurable result AND a lesson.
- Borderline: real story but narrates the team's work; result stated
  without their causal role; needed every probe to surface specifics.
- Red flag: hypothetical answer despite redirection; blames others for the
  ambiguity; cannot name a single decision they personally made.

SCORE: 1 (red flag) / 2 (borderline) / 3 (strong) - record evidence quotes, not impressions.

A full kit repeats this block for every item, prefaced by a one-page loop plan: competency-to-interviewer matrix, session order, and time budgets.

Deliverable

Produce the complete kit: a competency-to-interviewer allocation matrix, 2-3 items per competency in the block format above (each with STAR probes and all three anchors), at least one work-sample exercise with its own anchors, and delivery notes (order, time budgets, allowed follow-ups). The kit is the input to scorecards - not a hire recommendation.

Do NOT

  • Do NOT generate questions touching age, family or marital status, pregnancy, religion, disability, health, national origin, or salary history where restricted - these create legal exposure regardless of intent.
  • Do NOT write hypothetical "what would you do" questions where a past-behavior or work-sample item would yield real evidence.
  • Do NOT allow free-form, candidate-specific tangents that break comparability across candidates.
  • Do NOT assess anything outside the defined, job-relevant competencies - "culture fit" without a defined competency is bias with a nicer name.
  • Do NOT issue a verdict, ranking, or hire/no-hire call; the panel decides, and the kit only informs that decision.
  • Do NOT overload a session - more than 4 behavioral items in 45 minutes guarantees shallow answers on all of them.

Quality bar

  • Every question traces to exactly one competency on the rubric; no orphan questions.
  • Every question has all three anchors (strong, borderline, red flag), each tied to the competency.
  • At least one work-sample item per loop, identical across candidates.
  • The loop is reproducible: another interviewer could run it identically from the kit alone.
  • The compliance pass is done on the final set, and derived competencies are labeled as derived.

Escalation and neighbors

This kit is not legal advice; for roles in regulated industries, unionized environments, or jurisdictions with strict interview law, have HR or employment counsel review the final set. Upstream, build the rubric with hiring-scorecard or screening-rubric-builder and the posting with job-description-writer (bias-check it with jd-bias-scrubber). Downstream, consolidate completed scorecards with interview-debrief-synthesizer. For user-research interviews - a different craft with different rules - use interview-guide-builder.

Download now (ZIP)

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
What did you use it for? e.g. Reviewing pull requests in a Rails app

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.