Hiring Rubric Skill

This skill generates a complete structured interview scorecard and guide for any role. It reduces hiring bias, enables consistent evaluation across interviewers, and produces better hiring decisions.

Not quite this? Use engineering-hiring-rubric when the role is technical and needs scorecards for engineering interviews.

Required Inputs

Work from what is given. If any of these is missing, still produce the complete output: fill each gap with a reasonable assumption marked (assumed, confirm) and list those assumptions at the end. Ask a question first only when the core subject itself is missing (there is nothing to write about).

• Role title and level (e.g. Senior Product Manager, Junior Data Analyst)
• Team or function (e.g. Growth, Platform, Customer Success)
• Top 3–5 things this person needs to do well (the actual job requirements, not just the JD)
• Interview format (number of rounds, length of each)
• Any known gaps or risks to probe for (optional)
• Company values or competencies (optional — if provided, include as a competency section)

Output Structure

Interview Scorecard: [Role Title]

Level: [Junior / Mid / Senior / Staff / Manager] Team: [Team name] Created: [Date]

Scorecard Overview

Each competency is scored 1–4:

• 4 — Strong Yes: Clear evidence of exceptional ability. Hire signal.
• 3 — Yes: Solid evidence. Meets the bar for this role.
• 2 — Lean No: Some evidence but gaps that matter for this role.
• 1 — No: Little to no evidence. Clear miss.

Hiring recommendation:

• 3+ competencies at 4, rest at 3 = Strong hire
• Majority at 3, no 1s = Hire
• Any 1s or majority 2s = No hire (unless specific mitigating factors)

Competencies & Scoring

For each competency (generate 4–6 based on the role):

Competency [N]: [Name — e.g. "Problem Structuring" / "Stakeholder Influence" / "Technical Depth"]

Why this matters for this role: [One sentence — connects to actual job requirements]

What 4 looks like (Strong Yes): [Specific, observable behaviours. "Proactively decomposed an ambiguous problem into a structured approach without prompting. Could articulate tradeoffs clearly and made assumptions explicit."]

What 2 looks like (Lean No): [Specific, observable behaviours at the lower end. "Could answer direct questions but struggled when the interviewer removed scaffolding. Required significant prompting to reach a structured answer."]

Interview Questions (2–3 per competency):

1. [Behavioural STAR question — e.g. "Tell me about a time you had to make a decision with incomplete data."]

• Good answer signals: [What a strong answer includes]
• Weak answer signals: [What a weak or scripted answer looks like]
• Follow-up probe: [One follow-up to push deeper]

1. [Situational or hypothetical question for this role]

• Good answer signals:
• Follow-up probe:

Role-Specific Technical Assessment (if applicable)

[If the role requires a technical screen, describe:]

• Format: [Take-home / Live coding / Case study / Portfolio review]
• Duration: [Time]
• What you're assessing: [Specific skills]
• Scoring guidance: [What distinguishes a 4 from a 2 on the technical component]

Culture & Values Assessment

[2–3 values-based questions aligned to company values if provided, or general culture fit questions:]

1. [Question]

• What you're listening for:

Red Flags to Watch For

[5–7 specific red flags relevant to this role and level:]

• [e.g. "Speaks only about individual work — no mention of collaboration or team impact"]
• [e.g. "Can't give a specific example — pivots to hypotheticals when asked for real situations"]
• [e.g. "For senior roles: no evidence of influencing without authority"]

Interview Panel Guide

Suggest how to divide competencies across interview rounds to avoid repetition:

Quality Checks

• [ ] Scoring descriptions are observable (behaviours, not adjectives)
• [ ] 4 vs 2 distinction is clear and specific
• [ ] Questions have follow-up probes
• [ ] Red flags are specific to this role and level
• [ ] Panel guide avoids competency overlap between rounds

Anti-Patterns

• [ ] Do not include competencies that overlap significantly — each dimension must assess a distinct quality
• [ ] Do not write behavioural questions that can be answered with a yes/no — use "Tell me about a time..." format
• [ ] Do not set a scoring bar without calibration guidance — "above bar" means nothing without concrete examples at each level
• [ ] Do not create a rubric with more than 6 competencies — panel interviews cannot reliably assess more
• [ ] Do not omit a "must-have vs. nice-to-have" distinction in the requirements — all criteria cannot carry equal weight

Example Trigger Phrases

• "Create a hiring rubric for a [role]"
• "Build an interview scorecard for [job title]"
• "Give me structured interview questions for a [level] [role]"
• "We're hiring a [role] — help me build an assessment framework"