agentleFS
philpalmieriphilpalmieri/engineering-manager-skills/skills/management/interview-analysis/SKILL.md

interview-analysis

Skill1 starsChanged 6 months agoMITView on GitHub

Transform raw behavioral interview notes into a structured summary with rubric assessments, recommendation, and self-coaching. Takes raw notes and a scoring template, produces a polished write-up preserving the original notes below. Use after conducting a behavioral interview.

3 other projects use a version of this.

Adopted by

Most recently taken up by

The file

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

9 rules. About 0 are common, 9 are distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.

  • ≈0

    Common · estimate

    Many files like this have a rule of this kind.

  • ≈9

    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:

    After conducting a behavioral or values-based interview

    line 19
  2. Distinctive:

    If any required input is missing, ask the user to provide it before proceeding.

    line 39
  3. Distinctive:

    Use semicolons (not colons or dashes) to separate criterion from evidence.

    line 124
  4. Distinctive:

    Read the raw notes for explicit hire/no-hire signals from the interviewer.

    line 128
  5. Distinctive:

    Do not fix typos or grammar in the raw notes section

    line 151
  6. Distinctive:

    Self-contained: Do not reference other candidate files as examples or calibration.

    line 156
  7. Distinctive:

    Preserve existing content: If writing to a file, raw notes stay intact below the separator.

    line 158
  8. Distinctive:

    Be honest in assessments: Don't grade on a curve. If signal is weak, say so.

    line 159
  9. Distinctive:

    Output flexibility: If the user doesn't specify a file path, present the analysis in the conversation.

    line 160

≈ “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 Analysis

Transform raw interview notes into a structured, paste-ready summary. Scores each question against the rubric, synthesizes a recommendation, and generates interviewer self-coaching for improvement.

When to use

  • "Clean up interview notes", "analyze interview for [candidate]", "interview analysis"
  • "Score this interview", "write up my interview notes"
  • After conducting a behavioral or values-based interview

Inputs

The user must provide:

  1. Raw interview notes — the interviewer's real-time notes. Can be:
    • Pasted directly into the conversation
    • A file path to the notes document
    • Already in a candidate file that needs cleanup
  2. Interview template/rubric — the question bank and scoring criteria. Can be:
    • A file path to the template
    • Pasted directly
    • Referenced by name if the user has a known templates directory
  3. Target level (optional) — helps calibrate rubric expectations. Infer from template name if not stated.
  4. Interviewer name (optional) — for attribution in the summary header. If not provided, omit or ask.

If any required input is missing, ask the user to provide it before proceeding.

Output Structure

Produce a clean summary followed by the preserved raw notes:

# Behavioral Interview Summary: [Candidate Name] ([Level] Candidate)

**Candidate:** [Name] **Target Level:** [Level] **Interview Type:** Behavioral **Interviewer:** [Name]

**Recommendation: [Hire / No Hire / Lean Hire / Lean No Hire]**

**Overall Impression:** [2-4 sentence synthesis of the interviewer's assessment. Direct and honest.]

**Key Concerns:** (if applicable, bullet list of specific patterns observed)
**Key Strengths:** (if applicable, bullet list of standout positives)

---

## Question N: [Topic Name]

**Q:** _[Full question text from the template, italicized]_

**Values/Competencies:** [Dimensions from the template for this question]

**Summary:** [Narrative paragraph synthesizing the raw notes into coherent prose. Include what was asked, what the candidate said, how follow-ups went, and how the candidate responded to probing. Tell the story of the conversation, not just summarize the answer.]

**Lesson Learned:** [Include ONLY when the question is about failure, feedback, or growth. Extract what the candidate claims to have learned. Omit for other question types.]

**Org Fit Signal:** [Optional. Include when the answer reveals signal about what kind of role, team, or environment the candidate would thrive in. Omit if no clear signal.]

**Rubric Assessment:**

- [✅/⚠️/❌] [Rubric criteria from template]; [brief evidence or gap noted]
- [✅/⚠️/❌] [Next rubric criteria]; [brief evidence or gap noted]
...

---

[Repeat for each question asked]

---

## Candidate's Questions

- [List questions the candidate asked]
- [If the questions reveal signal, add a brief note]

---

## Interviewer Notes

[Synthesis of behavioral observations, communication style, red flags, and patterns. Written in first person from the interviewer's perspective. Professional but direct.]

---

## Interviewer Self-Coaching

For each question asked, note what follow-ups could have been asked to get stronger signal.

### Question N: [Topic]
- **Missing signal on [area].** A good follow-up would have been: _"[suggested question]"_ This would test [what it would reveal].

### General Notes
- [Overall interviewing observations: pacing, depth vs. breadth, time management]

---
---

# Raw Interview Notes

[Original raw notes preserved exactly as written]

Rubric Assessment Rules

For each question, pull rubric criteria from the template (both Positives and Negatives columns if available). Assess each positive criterion:

  • ✅ Strong positive signal: candidate provided specific, concrete evidence
  • ⚠️ Mixed or partial signal: candidate touched on this but lacked specifics or depth
  • ❌ Negative signal or absent: candidate did not address this, or actively demonstrated the corresponding negative

Format: - [emoji] [Criterion from template]; [your specific evidence or observation]

Use semicolons (not colons or dashes) to separate criterion from evidence. When a candidate's answer matches a negative from the rubric, call that out explicitly.

Determining Recommendation

Read the raw notes for explicit hire/no-hire signals from the interviewer. If stated, use that. If not explicit, derive from rubric assessments:

  • Majority ✅ with no ❌ on critical criteria = Hire or Lean Hire
  • Mixed ✅ and ⚠️ = Lean Hire or Lean No Hire depending on severity
  • Any ❌ on critical criteria (depth of expertise, decision-making, learning from failure) = Lean No Hire or No Hire
  • Multiple ❌ or clear behavioral red flags = No Hire

How to Identify Questions Asked

Match questions in raw notes against the template's question bank by content/topic. Note which template question number each corresponds to. If a question doesn't match the template, include it as supplemental.

Follow-Up Conversation Flow

The Summary for each question should document the full conversation arc:

  • What the candidate said initially
  • What follow-up questions were asked
  • How the candidate responded to probing (deeper, redirect, repeat, struggle?)
  • Whether hints or reframes were needed
  • Editorial observations from raw notes woven in naturally

Handling the Raw Notes

  • Preserve raw notes exactly as written below the double separator (---\n---)
  • Do not fix typos or grammar in the raw notes section
  • The summary section is the polished version; raw notes are the source of truth

Rules

  • Self-contained. Do not reference other candidate files as examples or calibration.
  • Always generate the Self-Coaching section. For each question, suggest 1-2 follow-ups that could have yielded stronger signal. Reference specific rubric criteria that were hard to assess. Be constructive and specific, not generic.
  • Preserve existing content. If writing to a file, raw notes stay intact below the separator.
  • Be honest in assessments. Don't grade on a curve. If signal is weak, say so.
  • Output flexibility. If the user doesn't specify a file path, present the analysis in the conversation. If they specify a path, write it there.

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.