Hiring Scorecard

Hiring Scorecard Generator

Build a structured, bias-reducing hiring scorecard that lets an interview panel make consistent, evidence-based decisions for any role.

Contents

• references/output-template.md -- the full 9-section scorecard.md structure with every block, table, and per-section guideline.
• references/competency-library.md -- which competencies to score by role type (technical IC, non-technical IC, manager, executive).
• references/usage-and-customization.md -- how to use the output, focus modes, biases prevented, format adaptations, and legal/compliance reminders.

Inputs

Job Title and Requirements are required; ask before generating if either is missing. The rest sharpen the output: Team Context, Level/Seniority, Role Type, Industry, Interview Panel, Compensation Band, Urgency/Timeline.

Workflow

1. Gather role context. Confirm job title, level, team structure, reporting line, and business need. Ask for missing required inputs. 2. Define criteria. Separate must-have from nice-to-have qualifications, each specific and observable with a verification method. See references/output-template.md Section 2. 3. Select competencies. Choose 6-10 competencies for the role using references/competency-library.md. 4. Build the scoring rubric. Anchor each competency to the 1-5 behavioral scale. See references/output-template.md Section 3. 5. Generate interview questions. Write 3-4 behavioral/situational questions per competency with follow-up probes and "what good/bad looks like". See references/output-template.md Section 4. 6. Create the evaluation matrix. Produce the independent interviewer scoresheet. See Section 5. 7. Identify flags. List 8-12 concrete red flags and 8-12 green flags tied to observable behavior. See Section 6. 8. Draft reference checks. Produce targeted reference questions that surface real signal. See Section 7. 9. Add debrief guide and appendix. Include the debrief agenda, decision framework, anti-bias checklist, scoring calculator, and panel/comparison templates. See Sections 8-9. 10. Write the file. Output a single scorecard.md in the working directory (or a user-specified path), assembled from all nine sections and ready to hand to a panel without further editing.

For focus modes (technical, leadership, sales/GTM, creative, operations, culture-heavy), format adaptations, and legal/compliance reminders, see references/usage-and-customization.md.

Competency Library by Role Type

Select competencies to score (typically 6-10 total) based on the role. Combine the base set for the role family with any add-on sets that apply.

Technical Individual Contributor

• Technical depth in primary domain
• System design / architecture thinking
• Code quality and engineering rigor
• Debugging and problem-solving approach
• Communication and collaboration
• Ownership and initiative
• Learning agility

Non-Technical Individual Contributor

• Domain expertise
• Analytical thinking and problem solving
• Communication (written and verbal)
• Stakeholder management
• Execution and follow-through
• Adaptability and learning agility
• Strategic thinking (for senior roles)

People Manager (add to the relevant IC set)

• Hiring and talent development
• Performance management
• Team building and culture
• Cross-functional leadership
• Decision-making under ambiguity

Executive / VP+ (add to the manager set)

• Vision and strategy
• Organizational design
• Board/investor communication
• Business acumen and P&L ownership
• Change management at scale

Scorecard Output Template

Generate a single scorecard.md file in the current working directory (or a path the user specifies) using the structure below. Make the scorecard thorough, actionable, and ready to hand to an interview panel without further editing.

---

Section 1: Role Summary

# Hiring Scorecard: [Job Title]

## Role Summary

- **Title**: [Job Title]
- **Level**: [Seniority Level]
- **Department / Team**: [Team name and context]
- **Reports To**: [Manager title]
- **Role Type**: [Technical / Non-Technical / Hybrid]
- **Date Created**: [Date]

### Why This Role Exists
[2-3 sentences on the business need this hire addresses]

### What Success Looks Like at 90 Days
[3-5 bullet points describing concrete outcomes for the first 90 days]

### What Success Looks Like at 1 Year
[3-5 bullet points describing concrete outcomes for the first year]

---

Section 2: Must-Have vs Nice-to-Have Criteria

Separate qualifications into two tiers. Make each criterion specific and observable, never vague.

## Criteria

### Must-Have (Non-Negotiable)

These are hard requirements. A candidate missing ANY must-have is a no-hire regardless of other strengths.

| # | Criterion | How to Verify | Weight |
|---|-----------|---------------|--------|
| M1 | [Specific, measurable criterion] | [Interview question, work sample, or reference] | [1-5] |
| M2 | ... | ... | ... |

### Nice-to-Have (Differentiators)

These separate good candidates from great ones. No single nice-to-have is required.

| # | Criterion | How to Verify | Bonus Weight |
|---|-----------|---------------|--------------|
| N1 | [Specific criterion] | [Verification method] | [1-3] |
| N2 | ... | ... | ... |

Guidelines for criteria:

• Must-haves: 5-8 criteria maximum. If everything is must-have, nothing is.
• Nice-to-haves: 4-6 criteria. These are tiebreakers.
• Give every criterion a concrete verification method.
• Weight reflects relative importance within its tier.
• For technical roles: include both technical skills AND collaboration/communication criteria in must-haves.
• For non-technical roles: include both domain expertise AND analytical/problem-solving criteria.
• For leadership roles: include people management, strategic thinking, and stakeholder management.

---

Section 3: Competency Definitions and Scoring Rubric

Define each competency with a 1-5 behavioral anchoring scale. This eliminates subjective interpretation.

## Scoring Rubric

Use the following scale for ALL competencies:

| Score | Label | Definition |
|-------|-------|------------|
| 1 | Strong No Hire | Significant gaps. Evidence of inability or misalignment. |
| 2 | Lean No Hire | Below the bar. Could develop but not ready for this level. |
| 3 | Neutral | Meets minimum bar. No strong signal either way. |
| 4 | Lean Hire | Above the bar. Clear evidence of competency at this level. |
| 5 | Strong Hire | Exceptional. Would raise the team's average in this area. |

---

### Competency: [Name] (Weight: X/5)

**What we are looking for**: [2-3 sentence description of what this competency means for THIS specific role]

| Score | Behavioral Anchor |
|-------|-------------------|
| 1 | [Concrete example of what a 1 looks like in an interview] |
| 2 | [Concrete example of what a 2 looks like] |
| 3 | [Concrete example of what a 3 looks like] |
| 4 | [Concrete example of what a 4 looks like] |
| 5 | [Concrete example of what a 5 looks like] |

[Repeat for each competency -- typically 6-10 competencies total]

See competency-library.md for which competencies to include per role type.

---

Section 4: Interview Questions by Competency

Provide 3-4 questions per competency. Mix behavioral ("Tell me about a time...") and situational ("How would you handle..."). Include follow-up probes.

## Interview Questions

### [Competency Name]

**Question 1** (Behavioral)
> "Tell me about a time when [specific scenario relevant to this role and competency]."

Follow-up probes:
- What was your specific role vs the team's?
- What was the outcome? How did you measure success?
- What would you do differently?

**What good looks like**: [Description of a strong answer]
**What bad looks like**: [Description of a weak answer]

---

**Question 2** (Situational)
> "Imagine you are in this role and [specific realistic scenario]. How would you approach it?"

Follow-up probes:
- What information would you need first?
- Who would you involve?
- How would you handle [complication]?

**What good looks like**: [Description of a strong answer]
**What bad looks like**: [Description of a weak answer]

---

**Question 3** (Technical / Domain-Specific) -- if applicable
> "[Role-specific question testing depth]"

Follow-up probes:
- [Probe that tests depth vs surface knowledge]
- [Probe that tests judgment, not just knowledge]

**What good looks like**: [Description of a strong answer]
**What bad looks like**: [Description of a weak answer]

[Repeat for each competency]

Question quality standards:

• Never ask illegal or discriminatory questions (age, family status, religion, disability, etc.).
• Reference specific, job-relevant situations in behavioral questions.
• Make situational questions reflect realistic challenges of THIS role, not generic hypotheticals.
• Give every question a clear "what good looks like" so interviewers calibrate consistently.
• Include at least one question per competency that probes failure/adversity; how candidates handle setbacks reveals more than how they handle wins.
• For technical roles: include a live problem-solving or system design component, not just Q&A.
• For leadership roles: include questions about difficult people decisions (firing, reorganizing, managing out).

---

Section 5: Evaluation Matrix (Interviewer Scoresheet)

A fill-in-the-blank scoresheet each interviewer completes independently BEFORE the debrief.

## Evaluation Matrix

**Candidate Name**: _______________
**Interviewer**: _______________
**Interview Date**: _______________
**Interview Focus Area**: _______________

### Scores

| Competency | Weight | Score (1-5) | Evidence / Notes |
|------------|--------|-------------|------------------|
| [Competency 1] | [X] | ___ | |
| [Competency 2] | [X] | ___ | |
| [Competency 3] | [X] | ___ | |
| ... | ... | ___ | |

### Weighted Total: ___ / [Max possible]

### Overall Recommendation

- [ ] Strong Hire
- [ ] Hire
- [ ] Lean Hire
- [ ] Lean No Hire
- [ ] No Hire
- [ ] Strong No Hire

### Key Strengths (Top 2-3)
1.
2.
3.

### Key Concerns (Top 2-3)
1.
2.
3.

### Would this candidate raise the average of the current team in their area? (Yes / No / Unsure)

### Additional Notes

Evaluation matrix rules:

• Interviewers MUST fill this out independently before any group discussion. This prevents anchoring bias.
• The "Evidence / Notes" column is mandatory, not optional. A score without evidence is not valid.
• Calculate the weighted total as SUM(weight * score) for all competencies.
• Keep the overall recommendation consistent with the weighted total but allow for holistic judgment.
• Include the "raise the average" question; it cuts through score inflation.

---

Section 6: Red Flags and Green Flags

Concrete, observable signals, not vague feelings.

## Red Flags and Green Flags

### Red Flags (Potential Disqualifiers)

These are warning signs that should trigger deeper investigation or a no-hire decision.

**Behavioral Red Flags**
- [Specific observable behavior and why it matters for this role]
- [Another specific red flag]
- ...

**Technical Red Flags** (for technical roles)
- [Specific technical gap or pattern]
- ...

**Cultural / Team Fit Red Flags**
- [Specific misalignment signal]
- ...

**Process Red Flags**
- [Resume inconsistencies, reference dodging, etc.]
- ...

### Green Flags (Strong Positive Signals)

These are indicators that a candidate is likely to succeed in this specific role.

**Behavioral Green Flags**
- [Specific observable behavior and why it predicts success]
- [Another specific green flag]
- ...

**Technical Green Flags** (for technical roles)
- [Specific technical strength or pattern]
- ...

**Cultural / Team Fit Green Flags**
- [Specific alignment signal]
- ...

**Process Green Flags**
- [Preparation quality, follow-up quality, etc.]
- ...

Flag guidelines:

• 8-12 red flags, 8-12 green flags per scorecard.
• Tie every flag to an observable behavior, not an inference about personality.
• Calibrate flags to the seniority level (what is a red flag for a VP is normal for a junior hire).
• Include at least 2 flags specific to the team context if provided.
• Never include flags that proxy for protected characteristics.

---

Section 7: Reference Check Questions

Targeted questions that go beyond "Would you hire them again?"

## Reference Check Questions

### Opening
- "Thanks for taking the time. I want to make sure we set [candidate] up for success if they join. Your honest input helps us do that."
- "We are considering [candidate] for a [title] role focused on [key responsibility]. Can you help me understand how they performed in similar areas?"

### Performance and Impact
1. "On a scale of 1-10, how would you rate [candidate]'s overall performance? ... What would it take to be a 10?"
2. "What was [candidate]'s most significant accomplishment while working with you? What made it significant?"
3. "Can you describe a project where [candidate] fell short of expectations? What happened and how did they respond?"

### Working Style and Collaboration
4. "How would you describe [candidate]'s working style? What type of environment do they thrive in?"
5. "How did [candidate] handle disagreements with colleagues or leadership?"
6. "If I asked [candidate]'s peers to describe them in three words, what would they say?"

### Role-Specific Questions
7. "[Question specific to the primary competency of the role]"
8. "[Question specific to the team context or a known challenge of the role]"
9. "[Question probing a specific concern that emerged during interviews]"

### Leadership Questions (for manager+ roles)
10. "How many people reported to [candidate]? How did they handle underperformers?"
11. "Did anyone from [candidate]'s previous teams follow them to their next role? Why or why not?"
12. "How did [candidate] handle making an unpopular decision?"

### Closing
13. "If you could give us one piece of advice for managing [candidate] effectively, what would it be?"
14. "Is there anything I have not asked that you think is important for us to know?"

Reference check guidelines:

• Always ask the 1-10 rating question; it anchors the conversation and the follow-up ("What would it take to be a 10?") reveals real development areas.
• Ask about failures, not just successes. A reference who cannot name a single shortcoming is not being candid.
• Customize 2-3 questions based on concerns or open questions from the interview process.
• For back-channel references (with candidate permission), adjust tone to be more conversational.
• Pay attention to what references do NOT say as much as what they do say.
• If a reference is clearly reading from a script or giving only generic praise, probe deeper with specific scenario questions.

---

Section 8: Debrief Guide

How the hiring panel should run the post-interview debrief.

## Debrief Guide

### Before the Debrief
- All interviewers submit their scoresheets independently (no sharing before the meeting)
- Hiring manager collects and reviews all scoresheets for patterns
- Identify any score discrepancies of 2+ points on the same competency

### Debrief Agenda (45-60 minutes)

1. **Individual Summaries (2 min each)**: Each interviewer shares their overall recommendation and top 1-2 observations. No rebuttals yet.

2. **Competency Walk-Through (20-30 min)**: Go through each competency. For each:
   - Share scores (reveal simultaneously to avoid anchoring)
   - Discuss discrepancies -- what did each interviewer see?
   - Reach consensus score with documented evidence

3. **Red Flag Review (5 min)**: Did anyone observe a red flag? Discuss as a group.

4. **Green Flag Review (5 min)**: What were the strongest positive signals?

5. **Must-Have Checklist (5 min)**: Go through must-have criteria. Does the candidate pass all of them?

6. **Final Vote (5 min)**: Each interviewer gives their final recommendation. Hiring manager makes the call.

### Decision Framework

- **Any must-have not met** = No Hire (no exceptions)
- **Weighted score below [threshold]** = No Hire (set threshold at 60% of max)
- **Weighted score above [threshold]** = Proceed to offer (set threshold at 75% of max)
- **Between 60-75%** = Discuss. Consider: Would you bet your own quota/OKRs on this person?
- **Split panel** = Hiring manager decides, but must document reasoning

### Anti-Bias Checklist
Before finalizing the decision, the panel should ask:
- Are we comparing this candidate to the job requirements or to other candidates?
- Are we weighting recent interviews more heavily than earlier ones? (Recency bias)
- Did a single strong/weak moment override the full picture? (Halo/horn effect)
- Are we penalizing this candidate for traits we would praise in a different demographic? (Affinity bias)
- Would we make the same decision if this candidate had a different background but identical answers?

---

Section 9: Appendix

## Appendix

### Scoring Calculator

Total weighted score = SUM(competency_weight * competency_score) for all competencies

Maximum possible score = SUM(competency_weight * 5) for all competencies

Percentage = (Total weighted score / Maximum possible score) * 100

| Percentage | Recommendation |
|------------|----------------|
| 85-100% | Strong Hire |
| 75-84% | Hire |
| 65-74% | Borderline -- requires strong justification |
| 50-64% | No Hire |
| Below 50% | Strong No Hire |

### Interview Panel Assignment Template

| Interviewer | Role | Competencies to Assess | Interview Format | Duration |
|-------------|------|------------------------|------------------|----------|
| [Name] | Hiring Manager | [Competencies] | Behavioral | 45 min |
| [Name] | Peer | [Competencies] | Technical / Collaborative | 60 min |
| [Name] | Cross-functional | [Competencies] | Situational | 30 min |
| [Name] | Skip-level | [Competencies] | Values / Culture | 30 min |

### Candidate Comparison Matrix (for finalist stage)

| Competency | Weight | Candidate A | Candidate B | Candidate C |
|------------|--------|-------------|-------------|-------------|
| [Comp 1] | [X] | ___ | ___ | ___ |
| [Comp 2] | [X] | ___ | ___ | ___ |
| ... | ... | ... | ... | ... |
| **Weighted Total** | | ___ | ___ | ___ |
| **Overall Rec** | | ___ | ___ | ___ |

Usage, Customization, and Compliance Notes

How to Use This Skill

1. Provide the basics: at minimum, the job title and key requirements. The more context provided (team size, culture, level, industry), the more tailored the scorecard. 2. Review and customize the generated scorecard. Adjust:

• Criteria weights based on specific priorities
• Behavioral anchors based on the team's standards
• Interview questions based on known challenges
• Red/green flags based on lessons from past hires

3. Distribute before interviews: give each interviewer their assigned competencies and the relevant questions BEFORE the interview, not after. 4. Enforce independence: complete the evaluation matrix independently. This is the single most important anti-bias mechanism in the process.

Customization Options

When invoking this skill, request any of the following focus modes:

• Technical depth: engineering, data science, or other technical roles. Includes system design evaluation, coding assessment rubrics, and technical depth probes.
• Leadership focus: manager, director, VP, or C-level roles. Includes organizational design questions, P&L evaluation, and executive presence assessment.
• Sales/GTM focus: sales, marketing, or go-to-market roles. Includes quota attainment verification, deal review exercises, and customer-facing assessment.
• Creative focus: design, content, or creative roles. Includes portfolio review rubrics, creative process evaluation, and taste/judgment assessment.
• Operations focus: ops, finance, or analytical roles. Includes case study evaluation, process design assessment, and quantitative reasoning tests.
• Culture-heavy: when team fit is paramount. Includes values alignment assessment, working style evaluation, and team simulation exercises.

Common Mistakes This Scorecard Prevents

1. Hiring on vibes: every score requires written behavioral evidence. 2. Halo effect: structured competency-by-competency evaluation prevents one strong area from masking weaknesses. 3. Anchoring bias: independent scoresheets before debrief prevent the loudest voice from dominating. 4. Moving goalposts: must-have criteria are defined before interviews begin, not adjusted to fit a preferred candidate. 5. Confirmation bias: red flag checklist forces interviewers to consider disconfirming evidence. 6. Recency bias: debrief structure gives equal weight to all interviews, not just the most recent. 7. Similarity bias: anti-bias checklist in debrief guide surfaces unconscious preference for candidates who "look like us". 8. Reference theater: targeted reference questions go beyond "Would you hire them again?" to surface real signal.

Adapting for Different Interview Formats

• Remote interviews: add notes about video quality assessment, async communication evaluation, and remote collaboration signals.
• Panel interviews: assign specific competencies to specific interviewers to avoid redundancy.
• Case studies / work samples: include a rubric for evaluating the work product, not just the presentation.
• Take-home assignments: include time-boxed evaluation criteria and a rubric for assessing approach vs just output.
• Trial days / contract-to-hire: include a structured observation checklist for the trial period.

Legal and Compliance Reminders

• Keep all questions job-related and consistent across candidates.
• Do not ask about age, marital status, family plans, religion, disability, national origin, or other protected characteristics.
• Document the business justification for every must-have criterion.
• Keep all scoresheets on file per the company's retention policy.
• If using AI-assisted screening, ensure compliance with local AI hiring laws (NYC Local Law 144, Illinois AIPA, etc.).