Add multi-platform export generator (single source of truth)
Make the library multi-platform without duplicating content. Each skills/<name>/SKILL.md body remains the single source of truth; a new generator renders platform-ready exports from it. - scripts/build-exports.mjs — dependency-free Node generator with a PLATFORMS registry so new platforms (Gemini, Cursor, …) are a few lines. Ships ChatGPT exports at exports/chatgpt/<bundle>/<skill>/SYSTEM_PROMPT.md (172 skills), plus generated index READMEs. Supports --platform and --check. - exports/ — generated ChatGPT system prompts, ready to paste into a Custom GPT. - .github/workflows/check-generated.yml — fails a PR if exports or web/skills.json drift from the source skills. - README "Works With" now documents the ready-to-use exports and regen command. - CHANGELOG + SKILL-AUTHORING-STANDARD note the generated artifacts. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.8 <noreply@anthropic.com> Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_016JWn5jRD5tcEFKrubjQ6Px
This commit is contained in:
Claude
@@ -0,0 +1,130 @@
|
||||
# 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.
|
||||
|
||||
## Required Inputs
|
||||
|
||||
Ask the user for these if not provided:
|
||||
- **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]
|
||||
|
||||
2. *[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:
|
||||
|
||||
| Round | Interviewer | Competencies to Assess |
|
||||
|---|---|---|
|
||||
| 1 — Recruiter Screen | Recruiter | Motivation, career narrative, basics |
|
||||
| 2 — Hiring Manager | [Role] | [Assign 2 competencies] |
|
||||
| 3 — Peer Interview | [Role] | [Assign 2 competencies] |
|
||||
| 4 — Stakeholder | [Role] | [Assign 1–2 competencies + culture] |
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## 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"
|
||||
Reference in New Issue
Block a user