candidate-scorecard
GitHub将面试笔记转化为结构化的候选人评分卡及录用建议。依据岗位胜任力提供证据支持的评级、优缺点分析、置信度推荐及后续问题，确保评估客观、无偏见且决策就绪。
触发场景
安装
npx skills add mohitagw15856/pm-claude-skills --skill candidate-scorecard -g -y
SKILL.md
Frontmatter
{
"name": "candidate-scorecard",
"description": "Turn interview notes into a structured candidate scorecard and hire recommendation. Use when asked to write an interview scorecard, a candidate evaluation, an interview debrief, or to summarize feedback into a hire\/no-hire call. Produces a per-competency assessment with evidence and ratings, an overall recommendation with confidence, and the open questions for the next round — evidence-based, bias-aware, and decision-ready."
}
Candidate Scorecard Skill
A scorecard converts a fuzzy "I liked them" into an evidence-based, comparable evaluation. It rates the
candidate against the same competencies the role defined, ties each rating to specific evidence from the
interview, and lands a clear recommendation — so debriefs are about evidence, not who argues hardest. (For the
role's question set and competencies, pair with interview-question-bank.)
Working from a brief
Given rough interview notes, produce the full scorecard anyway — organize the evidence under the relevant competencies and give a rating + recommendation, marking where evidence is thin (low confidence / probe next round). Never invent things the candidate said; if a competency wasn't assessed, say so rather than guessing.
Required Inputs
Ask for these only if they aren't already provided (else mark as not assessed):
- The role & competencies — what's being assessed (or use the role's interview kit).
- Interview notes — what the candidate said/did, ideally with examples.
- The interview scope — which round/competencies this interviewer covered.
- Scale — the rating scale to use (e.g. 1–4: strong no / no / yes / strong yes).
Output Format
Candidate Scorecard: [name] — [role]
- Summary — one-line read: overall rating and the headline reason.
- Per-competency assessment — for each competency assessed:
| Competency | Rating | Evidence (what they said/did) | Concern / gap |
|---|
Mark any competency you couldn't assess as Not assessed.
- Strengths — the 2–3 clearest, evidence-backed.
- Risks / gaps — the real concerns, with the evidence (not vibes).
- Open questions for next round — what to probe to resolve uncertainty.
- Recommendation — Hire / No hire / Lean yes / Lean no, with a confidence level and the one-sentence rationale.
Quality Checks
- Every rating is tied to specific evidence from the interview, not impressions
- Competencies not actually assessed are marked "Not assessed", not guessed
- Strengths and risks are concrete and balanced — not a one-sided narrative
- The recommendation states a confidence level and what would change it
- Open questions hand the next interviewer something specific to probe
- No invented quotes/claims; bias-prone "culture fit" is replaced with job-related evidence
Anti-Patterns
- Do not rate on overall vibe — anchor each score to what the candidate actually demonstrated
- Do not invent or embellish what they said to justify a rating
- Do not score competencies you didn't test — flag them for the next round
- Do not hide low confidence behind a confident-sounding verdict — say how sure you are
- Do not lean on "culture fit" as a reason — name the specific, job-related concern
Based On
Structured-hiring practice — competency ratings anchored to evidence, calibrated recommendations with confidence, and bias-aware, decision-ready debriefs.
版本历史
- a38bc30 当前 2026-07-05 11:30
