Hiring with AI: from job description to structured interview

I need to put together a job description for a new position on my
team. I don't want a wishlist — I want a role built on what the
team actually does.

Team: [how many people, what it does, who it reports to]
What currently isn't getting done, or is getting done badly, due to
lack of capacity: [list 8-12 specific tasks, and for each, who's
doing it now and how much time it takes]
What the new hire should take over in the first three months: [list]
What they'll do once they're up to speed: [list]
How we'll know it worked, a year in: [list]

Put together a job description that includes:
1. The job as 5-7 tasks in order of time spent, with an estimate
   of what percent of the week each takes.
2. Decisions this person makes on their own, and which ones they
   escalate.
3. Who they work with and how often.
4. Three outcomes that define success a year in — measurable, not
   “will be a great team member.”

Don't add anything I haven't given you in the brief. Where you're
missing information, write the question you should ask me instead.

Here's the list of requirements we collected for the [title]
position, from the team and from leadership:

[paste all the requirements exactly as they came in]

Job duties and responsibilities: [paste the job description from
the previous step]

Sort the requirements into three groups, with a one-sentence
justification for each placement:
A) MUST-HAVE — can't do the job in the first three months without
   it, and it can't be picked up through onboarding
B) NICE-TO-HAVE — shortens ramp-up, but you can start without it
C) WILL LEARN HERE — belongs in the ad as an offer, not a
   requirement

Then tell me:
1. How many people on the market you think satisfy all of group A
   at once — and whether I accidentally combined two different
   roles into one.
2. Which requirements in group A are actually requirements for a
   trait rather than a skill, and how to reword them into something
   that can be demonstrated with an example in an interview.
3. Which requirements needlessly narrow the applicant pool without
   improving the outcome (for example, years of experience instead
   of a demonstrated ability, or a specific tool instead of a task
   type).

Build me an evaluation scorecard for the [title] position.

Job description: [paste]
Group A and B requirements: [paste]

For each criterion (I want 4-6, no more), give me:
- a name and one sentence on exactly what it measures,
- a description of three levels — WEAK / ADEQUATE / STRONG — each
  described by what the candidate says or shows, not by
  adjectives,
- how it gets verified: an interview question, a practical
  exercise, a reference check,
- the weight of the criterion relative to the role, and why.

Criteria must be observable. None of them can be “culture fit,”
“team player,” or anything judged on impression — if I genuinely
need a trait like that, reword it into a specific behavior in a
specific situation that can be shown with a real example.

At the end, add a warning about which criteria are easy to score
in a biased way, and what to do about it.

Write a job ad for the [title] position at [industry, company
size, city].

Job description: [paste]
Must-have: [paste group A]
Will learn here: [paste group C]
What an ordinary week looks like: [paste]
Team: [paste — how many people, what they do, who leads]
What's hard or unpleasant about the job: [be honest]

Rules:
- open with what this person will be doing, not who we are,
- describe the work through concrete tasks and an ordinary week,
- requirements, max 5 bullets, phrased as an ability to demonstrate
  something, not years of experience,
- include the unpleasant part too — what isn't nice about the job;
  a candidate it scares off would have left within a year anyway,
- describe how the hiring process works: how many rounds, what
  each one covers, and by when we'll get back to people,
- no phrases like “dynamic team,” “friendly environment,”
  “interesting projects,”
- max [400] words, [informal / formal] address.

Review this job ad the way someone responsible for equal
treatment in hiring would. Don't rewrite it, just list your
findings.

Ad: [paste]

1. Wording that directly or indirectly references age, gender,
   marital status, health, nationality, religion, or any other
   personal trait — quote the specific sentence and say what's
   wrong with it.
2. Requirements that don't relate to job performance and needlessly
   narrow the pool (years of experience, a specific school, native
   language where a working level would do, a driver's license for
   a job with no travel).
3. Hidden signals in the tone — phrasing that hints at who the
   company “pictures” in the role.
4. For each finding, suggest neutral wording that keeps what I
   actually needed.

At the end, note what's missing from the ad so a candidate knows
how to apply and what to expect.

Here's a résumé and cover letter from one applicant for the
[title] position, and my evaluation criteria.

Criteria: [paste the scorecard from phase 1]
Applicant's material: [paste the résumé and cover letter text]

Produce a structured extract — DO NOT SCORE OR RECOMMEND:
1. For each criterion, list exactly what's documented in the
   material: what experience, where, for how long, in what role.
   Quote the location in the material.
2. For each criterion, note what's NOT in the material — what I'd
   need to ask about to be able to judge it.
3. Career timeline and any spots where it's unclear or has a gap
   (just describe it, don't speculate about the reason).
4. Three follow-up questions that come directly out of this
   specific material, not generic questions.

Don't assign a score, don't rank, don't write a recommendation, and
don't infer traits or motivation. Stick to what's in the text.

Prepare a set of structured-interview questions for the [title]
position. The interview runs [60] minutes, with [two] interviewers.

Criteria and their levels: [paste the scorecard]
Job description: [paste]

I want:
1. For each criterion, one main question about a specific past
   experience (not a hypothetical) plus two follow-ups that get at
   what the candidate did themselves, not their team.
2. For each question, describe what a WEAK, ADEQUATE, and STRONG
   answer sounds like — specifically, how they differ.
3. One practical exercise for [15] minutes that I'll give every
   candidate the same way, plus how to score it.
4. A time-blocked interview schedule, including time for the
   candidate's questions (at least 10 minutes) and a description
   of next steps.

Questions must be the same for every candidate and must not ask
about age, family, health, plans to have children, religion, or
anything unrelated to job performance.

Here's the professional section of a candidate's résumé and the
position's criteria.

Material: [paste]
Criteria: [paste]

Prepare 3 questions tailored directly to their experience. For
each one:
- why I'm asking it (which criterion it targets),
- what I want to hear in a good answer,
- how I'll tell they're describing the team's work instead of
  their own,
- one follow-up question that gets at a specific decision they made
  themselves, and its consequences.

Only ask about things that are actually in the material. Don't
invent anything or assume anything about their motivation or
personality.

Here's my transcribed notes from the interview with candidate
[label] for the [title] position, and my evaluation criteria.

Criteria and levels: [paste the scorecard]
Notes and dictation transcript: [paste]

Put this into a structure:
1. For each criterion, list what the candidate said — in their own
   words where possible, not my interpretation.
2. For each criterion, flag whether I have enough material to
   score it, or what's missing (and what specifically).
3. List separately: facts they stated, my impressions, and my
   assumptions. Three separate lists.
4. What's still unresolved and needs following up on, either in the
   next round or with references.

Don't evaluate the candidate, don't assign levels or a score —
I fill in the levels myself. Don't add anything that isn't in the
notes.

Here are the filled-in scorecards for [4] candidates for the
[title] position. I filled in the criteria levels myself.

[paste the scorecards]

Prepare material for the decision meeting:
1. A table: criteria in rows, candidates in columns, each cell
   holding only the documented evidence in a few words (not my
   evaluation).
2. Which criteria show the biggest differences between candidates,
   and which are practically a tie.
3. Where I have too little material on any of them to decide, and
   what to add (another round, references, a practical exercise).
4. Questions the decision group should ask itself to check it isn't
   deciding on impression — for example, where a score rests only
   on how well someone presented.

Don't rank the candidates, don't recommend a winner, and don't
compute an overall score. We make the decision, and I write the
justification.

Write a rejection email to a candidate who interviewed with us for
the [title] position.

Stage they got to: [after the interview / after the second round]
What was strong on their side: [specifics]
What specifically tipped it in favor of another candidate:
[specifics, tied to a criterion, not to their personality]
Want to reach out to them in the future: [yes/no]
Tone: [formal], length under [180] words.

Rules:
- the first paragraph delivers the decision, no dragging it out,
- one specific, true sentence about what the team appreciated in
  their material or performance — it has to be true and based on
  what I give you,
- the reason phrased as a gap in required experience, not a
  personal shortcoming,
- offer the option to ask for more detailed feedback,
- no empty phrases like “we wish you every success in your future
  career” with no content, no “we'll keep your résumé on file”
  unless I actually have their consent for that,
- if I want to reach out in the future, say so specifically — for
  what role and why.

Don't invent anything I haven't given you in the brief.

Help me put together a plan for handling candidate material for the
[title] hiring round.

What we collect: [résumés, cover letters, interview notes,
scorecards, interviewer notes, tests]
Where it's stored: [email, shared drive, spreadsheet, system]
Who has access: [roles]
The hiring round ends around: [date]

Put together:
1. A table: type of material, where it's stored, who has access,
   what happens to it once the round ends, and exactly when.
2. A list of the places material typically gets forgotten (email
   attachments, shared folders, chat messages, printed interview
   notes) — go through them as a checklist.
3. Text for candidates, for the ad and the application
   confirmation: what we do with their material, how long we keep
   it, who to contact.
4. Draft consent wording, in case I want to hold onto material for
   future roles — clear, and revocable.

Distinguish what's an organizational measure from what a lawyer
should review. Don't write it as legal advice.