| name | Interview Debrief Synthesizer |
| description | Consolidates multiple interviewer scorecards into a calibrated hire/no-hire summary that foregrounds evidence, surfaces disagreement, and flags bias risks for a human panel. Use when you have collected scorecards or written feedback from a completed interview loop and need to run the debrief, calibrate divergent ratings, or produce a defensible decision write-up. Do NOT use when you are preparing questions or rubrics before interviews — use interview-question-kit instead. |
Interview Debrief Synthesizer
Turn a set of independent interviewer scorecards into one calibrated, evidence-led decision summary that a human panel can defend.
Workflow
- Gather inputs. Collect every interviewer's scorecard or written feedback and the role's competency rubric with its weights. If the rubric is missing, ask for it; do not infer a bar from the comments.
- Aggregate against the shared rubric. Map each interviewer's ratings to the defined competencies. Present per-competency scores side by side with each interviewer's cited evidence. Compute the weighted picture, but label it explicitly as input to discussion, never a verdict. Flag any competency no interviewer actually assessed.
- Surface disagreement instead of averaging it. Where interviewers diverge on the same competency, show both ratings with both sides' evidence. Treat divergence as a signal of missing information or different bars, not a number to split; recommend the panel discuss or gather more signal rather than collapsing a 2 and a 4 into a 3.
- Separate evidence from impression. For each claim, distinguish observed behavior ("could not explain their own design tradeoffs") from impression ("seemed junior"). Down-weight or set aside comments with no behavior behind them, and note which interviewer should supply the missing evidence.
- Flag bias and process risks. Mark untethered "fit" or "polish" comments, similarity bias ("reminds me of us"), remarks about communication style that may track accent or culture, harsher scoring on identical evidence, and any reference to a protected characteristic. Frame these as risks for the panel to examine, not as accusations.
- Frame the decision and its rationale. Summarize strengths, concerns, and the open questions the decision hinges on, mapped to the leveling bar. Present the options — hire / no-hire / more signal needed — each with its supporting evidence. Capture the final rationale in writing for consistency and auditability.
Quality bar
- Every score and concern in the summary is traceable to a named interviewer and cited evidence.
- Divergences are shown, not silently reconciled; the summary names what additional signal would resolve each one.
- The output presents decision options with evidence; it never hands back a single number as the answer.
- Bias and uncovered-competency risks are called out explicitly for the hiring manager and recruiter.
Do NOT
- Do not auto-decide, issue a final hire/no-hire, or rank the candidate against others by protected traits — this synthesis only informs a human decision.
- Do not average away disagreement to produce a clean composite score.
- Do not let an unsupported impression carry weight; require the underlying behavior first.
- Do not evaluate on anything but job-relevant evidence. Strike or quarantine any input referencing age, race, gender, disability, family status, religion, national origin, or salary history, and apply the same bar to every candidate.
