shiphrahx/ai-for-engineering-leaders/candidate-evaluation-summary

Candidate Evaluation Summary

Synthesize all interview feedback into one coherent, evidence-based evaluation — every strength and concern tied to an observation — that supports the hiring decision and stands up in the candidate's file.

Inputs to gather

Gather these before writing. If any are missing, ask for them in a single batched question — never invent feedback, ratings, or interview observations. Mark anything genuinely unavailable as Unknown in the output.

• Candidate — name
• Role and target level — what they applied for
• Interview feedback — all interviewer notes (can be unstructured) and ratings, by stage
• Interview dates — if available

Steps

1. Read all feedback before writing. Tie every claim to a specific interview observation; if a claim has no supporting evidence, drop it or mark the evidence Unknown — do not infer.
2. Analyze across interviewers: identify consistent signals (2+ interviewers agree), weight evidence by interview type for the skill in question (technical interview > cultural for technical depth), surface contradictions and state which signal is stronger and why, and distinguish "didn't demonstrate" from "demonstrated a weakness."
3. Write the candidate snapshot: name, role, interview dates (or Unknown), and overall recommendation.
4. Extract 3-5 strengths, each with the evidence and the interviewer/stage it came from, and a signal-strength label where the feedback supports it (e.g. "Strong signal"). Generic praise needs a concrete example ("explained a complex system clearly without jargon"), not an adjective.
5. Extract 2-3 concerns, each with evidence and a severity assessment — minor (coachable), moderate (needs a plan), major (blocker) — and distinguish a real skill gap from a bad-interview artifact (nerves, a poor question, an off day).
6. Write the level assessment: does the candidate meet the bar for the target level? Map evidence to level expectations; note absence of higher-level signals where relevant and whether that's expected.
7. Write team fit: how they'd complement the existing team and which gaps they fill — concretely, not as personality praise.
8. Write the recommendation: hire/no-hire, confidence level, and any conditions. For a borderline call, be explicit about what tips the balance ("despite concern X, hire because Y"). If one interviewer is a strong no, dig into the specifics — one strong signal may outweigh several weak positives.
9. Adapt to context: apply the same evidence rigor to internal candidates — no softer bar because you know them; keep the document factual and professional (HR, legal, or the candidate may read it in some jurisdictions); for a rejected candidate who might reapply, note specific growth areas and what to look for next time.
10. Assemble the output in the format below.

Output format

**Candidate Evaluation: [Name] — [Role]**
 
**Recommendation: [Hire / No Hire] ([Confidence: High/Medium/Low])**
 
**Strengths**
- **[Strength] ([signal strength]):** [Evidence, with interviewer/stage and quote if available.]
 
**Concerns**
- **[Concern] ([Minor/Moderate/Major]):** [Evidence.] Severity: [why, coachable or not].
 
**Level Assessment**
[Does the candidate meet the target-level bar? Evidence mapped to level expectations.]
 
**Team Fit**
[How they complement the team; which gap they fill; collaboration style.]
 
**Conditions:** [None — proceed to offer, or specific conditions before proceeding.]

Boundaries

• Never state a strength or concern without an interview observation behind it — unsupported claims are dropped or marked Unknown.
• Never fabricate ratings, quotes, dates, or interviewer names.
• Never apply a softer standard to internal or known candidates.
• Never assess interviewer calibration or verify claimed experience yourself — evaluate only demonstrated ability in the interviews; the user knows which interviewers run harsh or lenient.
• Never include protected-characteristic or personal commentary; this document may be read by HR, legal, or the candidate, and compliance varies by jurisdiction.

Chaining

• After a hire recommendation, offer offer-justification to justify level and comp to HR/compensation review.
• This summary is typically the input to the debrief's documented decision — if the decision meeting hasn't happened, run interview-debrief-facilitation first.