hiring-scorecard
Skill0 starsChanged 39 days agoMITView on GitHub
Build a job-related evaluation scorecard with evidence criteria and anchored ratings before screening or interviews.
4 other projects use a version of this.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- SkillMedev/people-ops-recruitingtheir own version, first seen Oct 5, 2026
- SkillMedev/engineering-manager-toolkittheir own version, 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 · 0
None found.
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 4
- OneWave-AI/claude-skills★ 378same name
- sohaibt/founder-mode★ 3same name
- SkillMedev/engineering-manager-toolkit★ 0same name
- SkillMedev/people-ops-recruiting★ 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
- candidate-screeningSkill
- interview-invitationSkill
- interview-kitSkill
- job-intakeSkill
- recruitment-workflowSkill
- sourcing-strategySkill
- vitaeSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
4 rules. 0 are common, 4 are distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.
0
Common
Most of the 4 edited versions we read keep these.
4
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 an agreed job brief and the hiring manager's desired outcomes.
- Distinctive: line 19
Write criterion-specific anchors on a simple four-point scale: 1 = evidence below the agreed requirement.
- Distinctive: line 20
If weighting is useful, agree weights with the hiring owner and make them sum to 100.
- Distinctive: line 34
Every rating must be reproducible from evidence.
“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
Hiring scorecard
Inputs
Use an agreed job brief and the hiring manager's desired outcomes. If requirements conflict, identify the decision needed before assigning weights. Ask which capabilities are essential on entry and which can be learned.
Procedure
- Select distinct criteria tied to the work. Avoid counting the same capability through several proxies such as years, title, and employer prestige.
- For each criterion, define the evidence source: work example, portfolio, structured interview, or agreed exercise. Record whether the evidence is available now or must be gathered later.
- Write criterion-specific anchors on a simple four-point scale: 1 = evidence below the agreed requirement; 2 = partial evidence; 3 = meets the requirement; 4 = exceeds it in a relevant way. Use “not assessed” for missing evidence, never zero.
- If weighting is useful, agree weights with the hiring owner and make them sum to 100. Do not invent numerical precision or reuse unapproved weights across roles.
- Identify genuine prerequisites separately. A missing CV detail is not proof that a prerequisite is absent; it becomes a follow-up question.
- Agree which interview or assessment will collect each remaining piece of evidence. Use the same core criteria for all candidates for this role.
Output
Return a table: criterion, job outcome, evidence needed, rating anchors, optional agreed weight, assessor, and assessment stage. Include the scoring rules and unresolved calibration decisions.
Example
Criterion: incident analysis. Meets requirement: explains a production incident, the diagnostic steps, the root cause, and a prevention change with observed results. Exceeds requirement: also demonstrates improvement across several services or teams. Not assessed: the CV only says “supported production.”
Quality check
Every rating must be reproducible from evidence. Exclude protected characteristics and proxies unrelated to the work. Avoid personality labels, school prestige, unexplained “fit,” and career-gap penalties. Scores organize evidence; they do not make an automatic hiring or rejection decision.
With Vitae
Read the selected job through live tools if available. Do not confuse candidate/job skill taxonomy tools with this evaluation framework. Unless a verified tool supports storing this exact scorecard, return the document for the recruiter to attach or enter. Never claim it was saved without a successful response.
Completion and handoff
The hiring owner calibrates the scorecard before candidate-screening or interview-kit uses it. Record its version so later reviews do not silently apply changed criteria to earlier candidates.
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.

