agentleFS
dazuckdazuck/operator-skills/skills/hiring-helper/SKILL.md

hiring-helper

Skill17 starsChanged 9 months agoMITView on GitHub

Screen job candidates using AI-powered evaluation. Use when asked to "screen candidates", "review applicants", "evaluate candidates", or when reviewing resumes and applications.

The file

Show its rules and text

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

14 rules. About 0 are common, 13 are distinctive, and 1 is very specific to this project.

  • ≈0

    Common · estimate

    Many files like this have a rule of this kind.

  • ≈13

    Distinctive · estimate

    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
  1. Distinctive:

    No examples of self-initiated work

    line 28
  2. Distinctive:

    No examples of pushing through difficulty

    line 45
  3. Distinctive:

    No metrics even for senior roles

    line 60
  4. Distinctive:

    No evidence of building things

    line 77
  5. Distinctive:

    No mention of AI tools

    line 91
  6. Distinctive:

    No area of clear strength

    line 124
  7. Distinctive:

    No interests outside work

    line 140
  8. Distinctive:

    When reviewing a resume or application:

    line 186
  9. Distinctive:

    Make a verdict: Must Interview / Worth Exploring / Pass

    line 192
  10. Distinctive:

    Use this template for each candidate:

    line 194
  11. Distinctive:

    Ask Claude to evaluate each candidate against the framework

    line 229
  12. Distinctive:

    When in doubt, pass. Better to miss someone good than hire someone mediocre.

    line 256
  13. Very specific:

    Add your roles: Create references/your-roles.md with role-specific traits for your open positions

    line 264
  14. Distinctive:

    Adjust traits: If a universal trait doesn't apply (e.g., AI-Native for non-tech company), modify the framework

    line 265

≈ “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

Finding Great Candidates

Goal: Identify candidates we'd be thrilled to have on the team. Not "can do the job" — candidates we're excited about.

"Our first 100 people are our cultural co-founders."

What Makes Someone Great (Universal Traits)

These traits apply to EVERY role. A candidate missing any of these is unlikely to be great.

1. High Agency

What it is: Takes initiative. Makes things happen. Doesn't wait for permission or perfect conditions.

How to spot it:

  • Started something from nothing (project, company, community, initiative)
  • Identified problems and solved them without being asked
  • Phrases like "I noticed X wasn't working, so I..." or "I proposed..."
  • Built things with limited resources
  • Career moves that show they created opportunity vs. waited for it

Red flags:

  • Passive language ("I was assigned to...", "My manager asked me to...")
  • No examples of self-initiated work
  • Lots of "we" with no clear individual contribution
  • Job history of only joining established teams/processes

2. Grit & Resilience

What it is: Perseveres through hard things. Doesn't quit when it gets difficult.

How to spot it:

  • Shipped something hard (long timeline, technical challenges, organizational friction)
  • Stayed with a problem until solved vs. moving on when stuck
  • Built something despite obstacles (funding, team, technical, market)
  • Career shows persistence (didn't job-hop at first sign of difficulty)
  • Specific stories of overcoming setbacks

Red flags:

  • Lots of short stints without clear upward moves
  • Vague explanations for leaving ("it wasn't a good fit")
  • No examples of pushing through difficulty
  • Blame-shifting to circumstances

3. Evidence of Impact

What it is: Demonstrable results. Outcomes, not just activities.

How to spot it:

  • Metrics at ANY scale: "10x'd revenue", "reduced costs 60%", "shipped to 5M users"
  • Promotions and increasing scope over time (trajectory)
  • Concrete examples: "built X which did Y"
  • Results even in resource-constrained environments
  • Would their bosses rate them 8+ and hire them again?

Red flags:

  • Vague: "worked on", "contributed to", "helped with"
  • No metrics even for senior roles
  • Flat trajectory (same level/scope over years)
  • Titles without corresponding impact stories

4. Technical Depth

What it is: Everyone should code, build, or have deep technical understanding.

How to spot it:

  • GitHub/portfolio with real projects
  • Technical blog posts or writing
  • Can explain complex systems simply
  • Specific technical choices and tradeoffs mentioned
  • For non-eng: deep understanding of how things work, technical curiosity

Red flags:

  • Avoids technical detail
  • Can't explain their technical work
  • No evidence of building things
  • Relies entirely on others for technical decisions

5. AI-Native

What it is: Uses AI tools daily, understands implications, sees opportunities.

How to spot it:

  • Mentions specific tools: Claude, ChatGPT, Cursor, Copilot
  • Built something with AI or integrated AI into workflow
  • Understands AI capabilities and limitations
  • Excited about AI, not fearful
  • Uses AI to accelerate their own work

Red flags:

  • No mention of AI tools
  • Seems unaware of AI capabilities
  • Treats AI as novelty vs. fundamental shift
  • Behind the curve on modern tools

6. Communication Excellence

What it is: Writes clearly, explains complex ideas simply, collaborates well.

How to spot it (their APPLICATION is a sample!):

  • Clear, structured writing
  • Gets to the point
  • Explains technical concepts accessibly
  • Good questions in interviews
  • Public writing/speaking if available

Red flags:

  • Rambling or unclear application
  • Can't articulate their own work
  • Jargon-heavy without substance
  • Poor writing quality

7. World-Class at Something

What it is: Top 1% in at least one domain. Demonstrable excellence.

How to spot it:

  • Recognized expertise: patents, publications, talks, awards
  • Deep mastery evident in how they discuss their domain
  • Built something impressive in their area
  • Others seek them out for this expertise
  • "The person you call" for X

Red flags:

  • Average across the board
  • No area of clear strength
  • Jack of all trades, master of none
  • Can't point to what they're best at

8. Interesting Person

What it is: Curious, diverse interests, unique perspective. Someone you'd want at dinner.

How to spot it:

  • Unusual background or path
  • Hobbies/interests outside work
  • Asks interesting questions
  • Learns continuously
  • Brings different perspective to problems

Red flags:

  • One-dimensional
  • No interests outside work
  • Generic responses
  • Nothing memorable about them

Role-Specific Traits

Beyond universal traits, each role has specific requirements. Customize these for your open roles.

Engineering Roles

  • Shipped production code at scale
  • System design thinking
  • Code quality/testing discipline
  • Open source contributions (bonus)
  • Technical leadership/mentorship (for senior)

Operations Roles

  • Process creation and optimization
  • Cross-functional coordination
  • Tool fluency (spreadsheets, project management, automation)
  • Clear documentation habits
  • Handles ambiguity well

Customer-Facing Roles

  • Empathy and patience under pressure
  • Clear communication of complex concepts
  • Problem-solving with limited information
  • Relationship building
  • Crisis management experience

Creative/Marketing Roles

  • Portfolio of shipped work
  • Data-informed creativity
  • Speed without sacrificing quality
  • Platform-native understanding
  • Measures and iterates
<!-- CUSTOMIZE: Add role-specific traits for your open positions in references/your-roles.md -->

How to Use This Framework

Option 1: Manual Screening

When reviewing a resume or application:

  1. Score each universal trait (1-5 scale)
  2. Note specific evidence for each score
  3. Flag red flags explicitly
  4. Assess role-specific fit
  5. Make a verdict: Must Interview / Worth Exploring / Pass

Use this template for each candidate:

## [Candidate Name] — [Overall Score]/100

### Universal Traits Assessment
| Trait | Score (1-5) | Evidence |
|-------|-------------|----------|
| High Agency | | [specific quote or observation] |
| Grit | | [specific quote or observation] |
| Impact | | [specific quote or observation] |
| Technical | | [specific quote or observation] |
| AI-Native | | [specific quote or observation] |
| Communication | | [specific quote or observation] |
| World-Class | | [specific quote or observation] |
| Interesting | | [specific quote or observation] |

### Role-Specific Fit
[Assessment against role requirements]

### Why We'd Be Thrilled
- [Specific exceptional signals]

### Questions to Probe
- [Specific areas needing verification]

### Verdict
[Must Interview / Worth Exploring / Pass]

Option 2: Batch Screening with Claude

For processing multiple candidates:

  1. Gather applications (export from your ATS or collect manually)
  2. Ask Claude to evaluate each candidate against the framework
  3. Request a ranked summary with verdicts
  4. Deep-dive on top candidates

Example prompt:

I have [X] candidates for [Role]. Please evaluate each against our hiring framework:
- Score universal traits (1-5)
- Note role-specific fit
- Give verdict: Must Interview / Worth Exploring / Pass
- Rank top 5 with reasoning

[Paste applications or link to files]

The Bar

"90% confidence that this person can do a job only 10% of candidates could do."

We're not asking "can they do the job?" We're asking "would we be thrilled to work with them every day?"

  • Must Interview: Multiple strong signals across traits, world-class at something, high skill AND will
  • Worth Exploring: Promising but questions remain — needs interview to resolve
  • Pass: Missing must-haves, too many red flags, or just "fine"

When in doubt, pass. Better to miss someone good than hire someone mediocre.


Customization

To customize this skill for your company:

  1. Add your roles: Create references/your-roles.md with role-specific traits for your open positions
  2. Adjust traits: If a universal trait doesn't apply (e.g., AI-Native for non-tech company), modify the framework
  3. Set your bar: Adjust scoring thresholds based on role seniority and market conditions

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.