candidate-scorecard

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](../interview-question-bank/SKILL.md).)

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.