candidate-screening
Skill0 starsChanged 36 days agoMITView on GitHub
Compare candidate evidence with an agreed role scorecard, identify missing information, and prepare a recruiter review without making automatic hiring decisions.
4 other projects use a version of this.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- 0xdeval/leads-screening-skilltheir own version, first seen Jun 11, 2026
- trycomp-io/comp-skillstheir own version, first seen Jun 5, 2026
- dazuck/operator-skillstheir own version, first seen Feb 27, 2026
- dazuck/claude-code-skillstheir own version, first seen Jan 23, 2026
Other versions4 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 4
- dazuck/operator-skills★ 17same name
- trycomp-io/comp-skills★ 2same name
- dazuck/claude-code-skills★ 1same name
- 0xdeval/leads-screening-skill★ 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 repository11 other files it gives its agents.
- AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- CLAUDE.mdCLAUDE.md
- candidate-outreachSkill
- candidate-presentationSkill
- hiring-scorecardSkill
- interview-invitationSkill
- interview-kitSkill
- job-intakeSkill
- recruitment-workflowSkill
- sourcing-strategySkill
- vitaeSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
1 rule. 0 are common, 1 is distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.
0
Common
Most of the 4 edited versions we read keep these.
1
Distinctive
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
- Distinctive: line 13
Use the selected job brief, the agreed scorecard, and candidate-provided or authorized records.
“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 4 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
Candidate screening
Inputs
Use the selected job brief, the agreed scorecard, and candidate-provided or authorized records. Record the source and date for each profile. If the scorecard is missing, establish criteria before evaluating people.
Procedure
- Resolve identity and duplicate records. Do not join two people just because their names match.
- Extract job-related evidence for each criterion. Preserve short source references so the recruiter can verify the claim. Distinguish “led,” “contributed,” and “observed” where the source supports that distinction.
- Apply the agreed anchors only where evidence exists. Mark missing evidence as “not assessed.” A CV omission is not a negative finding.
- Identify contradictions and write neutral clarification questions. Avoid speculative explanations for employment gaps or career changes.
- Summarize strengths, unresolved requirements, and the next evidence needed. If a stored match score exists, label its source and keep it separate from the evidence assessment.
- Return an assessment for human review. Do not automatically reject, advance, or rank candidates based on protected characteristics, health, family circumstances, ethnicity, religion, age, or inferred personality.
Output
For each candidate: record identifier; criterion-by-criterion evidence table; supported rating or not assessed; source; strengths; uncertainties; and targeted follow-up questions. Include a concise recruiter-review summary, not a final employment decision.
Example
Requirement: ownership of production reliability. CV evidence: “Built dashboards for three services.” Assessment: observability contribution evidenced; incident leadership not assessed. Follow-up: “Tell us about an incident you personally investigated, the action you took, and what changed afterward.” Do not rewrite the CV as “owned reliability across three services.”
Quality check
Could another reviewer trace every conclusion to a source? Did missing information stay unknown? Were the same criteria used across candidates? Are any stored or model-generated scores being mistaken for facts?
With Vitae
Use live search_ats_candidates, get_candidate, and get_candidate_resume after selecting the correct record. Read the job through get_job. A recruiter-approved stage change is a separate action with a verified application identifier and the server's approval boundary. Do not move stages as a side effect of writing this report.
Completion and handoff
Give the recruiter the evidence and questions. Continue to candidate-outreach or interview-kit only according to the recruiter's decision and the candidate's current stage.
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.

