agentleFS
vitaedotaivitaedotai/agent/skills/interview-kit/SKILL.md

interview-kit

Skill0 starsChanged 36 days agoMITView on GitHub

Prepare a structured interview plan with job-related questions, follow-up probes, evidence notes, and calibrated assessment guidance.

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

4 rules. 0 are common, 4 are distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.

  • 0

    Common

    Most of the 3 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
  1. Distinctive:

    Use the approved brief and scorecard, interview stage and duration, interviewer roles, and evidence already gathered.

    line 13
  2. Distinctive:

    Write a common core question for each selected criterion.

    line 19
  3. Distinctive:

    Add neutral probes that separate personal contribution from team achievement.

    line 20
  4. Distinctive:

    Ask interviewers to record independent assessments before the group debrief, then discuss evidence and disagreements.

    line 22

“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 3 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.

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

Interview kit

Inputs

Use the approved brief and scorecard, interview stage and duration, interviewer roles, and evidence already gathered. Candidate-specific follow-ups should resolve job-related uncertainties, not introduce new selection criteria.

Procedure

  1. Choose which criteria this stage will assess. Avoid attempting to measure every capability in one short interview or asking each interviewer to repeat the same material.
  2. Allocate time to introductions, evidence questions, candidate questions, and next steps. Ensure the plan fits the actual duration.
  3. Write a common core question for each selected criterion. Ask for a specific situation, the candidate's own actions, reasoning, tradeoffs, and outcome.
  4. Add neutral probes that separate personal contribution from team achievement. Do not coach toward the expected answer or assume the CV proves a claim.
  5. Attach the agreed scorecard anchors and a notes template. Capture observations before ratings. Do not use a first impression to fill missing evidence.
  6. Ask interviewers to record independent assessments before the group debrief, then discuss evidence and disagreements. Keep the final decision with the authorized hiring team.

Output

Provide a timed agenda, interviewer ownership, core questions, optional candidate-specific probes, evidence fields, rating anchors, candidate questions, and next-step wording. Include an “insufficient evidence” outcome.

Example

Criterion: incident analysis. Question: “Tell me about a production incident you helped resolve. How did you decide what to investigate first?” Probes: “What did you personally do?”, “What alternatives did you rule out?”, “How did you know the fix worked?”, “What changed to prevent recurrence?” Notes should distinguish actions, rationale, and observed result. Do not equate confidence of delivery with technical ability.

Quality check

Tie every scored question to the job. Avoid questions about age, family plans, health, religion, nationality, or other protected traits. Route role-specific eligibility questions through the employer's approved process. Offer equivalent ways to demonstrate the same capability when an adjustment is requested; do not score the adjustment itself.

With Vitae

Use verified read tools for role and candidate context. If a live question-set creation tool supports the intended format, show the proposed set and use the server's approval process. Do not invent its schema or claim that writing a kit schedules an interview. Capturing actual interview responses is a separate authorized action.

Completion and handoff

The kit is ready when it fits the time, uses calibrated criteria, and makes evidence collection clear. After the interview, synthesize supplied notes without inventing missing answers; use candidate-presentation for a recruiter-reviewed summary.

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.