hr

name	hr
promoted_to	business-ops
description	People operations workflows — recruiting pipeline, performance reviews, compensation analysis, offer drafting, interview prep, onboarding, org planning. Use when managing hiring pipelines, writing performance reviews, analyzing compensation, drafting offers, or planning organizational changes.
routing	{"triggers":["HR","human resources","recruiting","performance review","compensation","hiring","onboarding","org planning"],"not_for":"code performance review (use reviewer-code). This skill covers people performance reviews and HR operations.","category":"business","force_route":false,"pairs_with":["csuite","data-analysis"]}
user-invocable	true

HR — People Operations

Umbrella skill for all people operations: recruiting, performance management, compensation, offer drafting, interview design, onboarding, org planning, people analytics, and policy lookup. Each mode loads its own references on demand.

Scope: Decisions and artifacts involving people's careers, compensation, and organizational structure. Use csuite for strategic business decisions, data-analysis for general analytics, professional-communication for non-HR business writing.

---

Mode Detection

Classify the request into exactly one mode. If the request spans modes, choose the primary and note the secondary.

Mode	Signal Phrases	References
RECRUITING	Pipeline, candidates, sourcing, screening, hiring status, time to fill	references/recruiting.md
PERFORMANCE	Review, self-assessment, calibration, feedback, rating, promotion case	references/performance-management.md
COMPENSATION	Pay, salary, equity, comp bands, benchmarking, offer competitive, retention risk	references/compensation.md
OFFER	Draft offer, offer letter, comp package, signing bonus, start date	references/compensation.md
INTERVIEW	Interview plan, questions, scorecard, evaluation rubric, debrief	references/recruiting.md
ONBOARDING	New hire, first week, 30/60/90, onboarding checklist, buddy	references/recruiting.md
ORG-PLANNING	Headcount, reorg, team structure, span of control, org design	references/org-planning.md
PEOPLE-ANALYTICS	Attrition, headcount report, diversity metrics, org health, flight risk	references/org-planning.md
POLICY	PTO, benefits, leave, expenses, handbook, remote work policy	(no reference — use user-provided policy docs)

Always load: references/llm-hr-failure-modes.md — applies to every mode.

---

Sensitivity Guardrails

HR content touches people's careers, livelihoods, and legal rights. These guardrails are non-negotiable.

Rule	Rationale
Source compensation data from user-provided or public databases	Invented market rates cause real pay decisions. State "I don't have current market data" when you don't.
Focus recommendations on skills, behaviors, outcomes	"Hire more [group]" or "this candidate fits the culture" introduces bias. Focus on skills, behaviors, outcomes.
Include legal review disclaimer on all binding language	Offer letters, policy interpretations, and termination language need legal review. Always state this.
Ask for jurisdiction before advising on compliance	Employment law varies by country, state, city. Ask for jurisdiction before advising on compliance, leave, or termination.
Minimize PII retention; use role/level identifiers	Names, salaries, SSNs, demographics — minimize retention. Use role/level when names aren't needed.
Flag when output needs legal review	Offer letters, PIPs, termination docs, policy changes, accommodation decisions — always flag.

---

Workflow

Mode: RECRUITING

Framework: DEFINE → PIPELINE → EVALUATE

Phase 1: DEFINE — Clarify role requirements and pipeline structure.

• Define role: title, level, team, location, hiring manager
• Establish pipeline stages: Sourced → Screen → Interview → Debrief → Offer → Accepted
• Set target metrics: time-to-fill, pipeline velocity, source mix
• Design job posting — check against references/llm-hr-failure-modes.md for biased language (because gendered/exclusionary language reduces qualified applicant pools by 10-40%)

Gate: Role defined. Pipeline stages agreed. Posting reviewed for bias.

Phase 2: PIPELINE — Track and manage candidates through stages.

• Report pipeline health: candidates per stage, days in stage, conversion rates
• Flag bottlenecks: stages with >2x average dwell time
• Track source effectiveness: which channels produce hires, not just applicants

Gate: Pipeline metrics current. Bottlenecks identified.

Phase 3: EVALUATE — Structure interviews and decisions.

• Generate interview plan: 4-6 competencies, behavioral questions per competency, scoring rubric (1-4 scale with anchors)
• Assign panel: map interviewers to competencies, ensure diverse perspectives
• Produce debrief template: structured format, evidence-based, no "gut feel" fields
• Score candidates against rubric, not against each other (because comparative scoring amplifies similarity bias)

Gate: Interview kit complete. Debrief structured. Decision evidence-based.

Onboarding sub-mode (after offer acceptance):

• Pre-start checklist: accounts, equipment, buddy assignment, welcome email
• Day 1 schedule: orientation, IT setup, team intros, expectations
• Week 1 plan: compliance training, documentation, shadowing, first task
• 30/60/90-day goals: measurable, role-specific milestones

---

Mode: PERFORMANCE

Framework: STRUCTURE → WRITE → CALIBRATE

Phase 1: STRUCTURE — Select review type and load template.

Type	Use When
Self-assessment	Employee writing their own review
Manager review	Manager writing review for direct report
Calibration prep	Preparing rating distributions for calibration meeting

Gate: Review type selected. Template loaded.

Phase 2: WRITE — Generate review content with behavioral specificity.

Self-assessment:

• Key accomplishments: situation, contribution, impact (measurable)
• Goals review: status + evidence per goal
• Growth areas and challenges
• Next-period goals (specific, measurable)

Manager review:

• Overall rating with 2-3 sentence summary
• Strengths with specific behavioral examples (not personality traits)
• Development areas with actionable guidance (not vague directives)
• Goal achievement ratings with observations
• Development plan: skill → current level → target → actions
• Compensation recommendation with justification

Constraint: Describe observable behavior with specific examples ("documentation was incomplete on 3 of 5 deliverables") — because personality feedback triggers defensiveness and has no actionable path. See references/llm-hr-failure-modes.md.

Gate: Review content complete. All feedback behavior-based. Development areas actionable.

Phase 3: CALIBRATE — Prepare rating distribution and promotion cases.

• Team overview: employee, role, level, tenure, proposed rating
• Distribution check against targets: Exceeds (~15-20%), Meets (~60-70%), Below (~10-15%)
• Discussion points: borderline cases, role changes, first-at-level reviews
• Promotion candidates: current level, proposed level, evidence of next-level performance
• Compensation actions: promotions, equity refreshes, market adjustments, retention grants

Constraint: Present rating targets as guidelines, with flexibility for team context (because forced ranking creates perverse incentives and has been abandoned by most organizations).

Gate: Distribution documented. Promotion cases evidence-based. Compensation actions justified.

---

Mode: COMPENSATION

Framework: BENCHMARK → ANALYZE → RECOMMEND

Phase 1: BENCHMARK — Establish market data context.

• Identify components: base salary, equity, bonus (target + signing), benefits
• Key variables: role, level, location, company stage, industry
• Data sources: user-provided data, public salary databases, uploaded CSVs
• Never invent percentile numbers — if you don't have data, say so explicitly and offer to analyze user-provided data

Gate: Components identified. Variables specified. Data sources declared.

Phase 2: ANALYZE — Score against market and internal equity.

• Percentile bands: 25th, 50th, 75th, 90th for each component
• Band placement: where each employee falls within their band (below/at/above)
• Internal equity: same-role comparisons, compression detection, tenure-pay correlation
• Outlier detection: employees significantly above/below band midpoints
• Retention risk: below-band + high performer = flight risk

Constraint: Always state data vintage and source limitations. "Based on 2024 Levels.fyi data" not "the market rate is $X" — because stale data presented as current causes underpayment or overpayment.

Gate: Analysis complete. Sources cited. Limitations stated.

Phase 3: RECOMMEND — Deliver actionable compensation recommendations.

• Adjustment recommendations with priority ranking
• Budget impact modeling: total cost of recommended changes
• Equity refresh guidance: vesting cliffs, refresh cadence, retention timing
• Offer structuring: base/equity/bonus mix by company stage and candidate preference

Gate: Recommendations prioritized. Budget impact calculated. Sources documented.

Offer drafting sub-mode:

• Assemble package: base, equity (shares + vesting schedule + valuation method), bonus (target + signing), benefits summary
• Draft offer letter text — include disclaimer: "This draft requires legal review before sending"
• Negotiation guidance for hiring manager: flexibility ranges, non-monetary levers, walk-away points
• Flag compliance requirements by jurisdiction (at-will language, non-compete enforceability, benefits mandates)

---

Mode: ORG-PLANNING

Framework: ASSESS → MODEL → PLAN

Phase 1: ASSESS — Map current organizational state.

Metric	Healthy Range	Warning Sign
Span of control	5-8 direct reports	<3 (too narrow) or >12 (too wide)
Management layers	4-6 per 500 people	Excess layers = slow decisions
IC-to-manager ratio	6:1 to 10:1	<4:1 = top-heavy
Team size	5-9 people	<4 = fragile, >12 = unmanageable
Single points of failure	0	Any = structural risk

Gate: Current state mapped. Structural issues identified.

Phase 2: MODEL — Design target state and transition.

• Headcount modeling: role, level, location, cost, timeline, hiring sequence
• Org design options: functional, product, matrix, pod — with trade-offs per option
• Capacity planning: current capacity vs. planned work, gap analysis
• Sequencing: which hires unlock the most capacity or reduce the most risk

Constraint: Never recommend org changes based on individuals ("move Alice because she's difficult") — structure around roles and capabilities (because person-dependent org design creates fragility and masks management problems).

Gate: Target state modeled. Sequencing justified. Budget estimated.

Phase 3: PLAN — Convert to executable hiring roadmap.

• Phased hiring plan: Q1/Q2/Q3/Q4 with roles, cost, dependencies
• Reporting line changes with communication plan
• Risk mitigation: what happens if key hires take longer than planned
• Success metrics: time to productivity, team health scores, delivery velocity

Gate: Roadmap executable. Risks mitigated. Success metrics defined.

People analytics sub-mode:

• Headcount reports: by team, location, level, tenure — snapshot and trend
• Attrition analysis: voluntary/involuntary, regrettable/non-regrettable, by team, trend lines
• Diversity metrics: representation by level/team/function, pipeline diversity, promotion rate parity, pay equity
• Engagement indicators: survey scores, eNPS, participation rates, theme analysis
• Flight risk modeling: below-band compensation + low engagement + tenure inflection points

---

Mode: POLICY

Framework: FIND → EXPLAIN → CAVEAT

1. Search user-provided policy documents or handbook
2. Answer in plain language — no legalese
3. Quote specific policy language with source citation
4. Note exceptions and special cases
5. For legal/compliance questions: "Consult HR or legal directly for your specific situation"

Constraint: Answer only from user-provided policy documents. State when no source is available — do not guess (because fabricated policy guidance creates liability).

---

Error Handling

Error	Cause	Solution
No compensation data	User asks "what should we pay" without data	State limitation explicitly. Offer to analyze user-provided data or recommend public sources (Levels.fyi, Glassdoor, Radford).
Biased language in output	LLM generates gendered, ageist, or exclusionary phrasing	Run output against references/llm-hr-failure-modes.md bias checklist. Rewrite flagged phrases.
Jurisdiction unknown	Legal advice requested without location	Ask for jurisdiction before proceeding. Never default to US employment law.
Confidentiality scope unclear	User shares individual comp/performance data	Confirm intended audience. Remind that HR data is need-to-know. Minimize PII in outputs.
Template vs. real data confusion	User treats template placeholders as recommendations	Label all templates explicitly: "[PLACEHOLDER — replace with actual data]".
Policy not found	User asks about policy with no handbook provided	State clearly: no policy source available. Do not fabricate. Suggest uploading handbook.

---

References

Reference	When to Load	Content
references/recruiting.md	RECRUITING, INTERVIEW, ONBOARDING modes	Pipeline stages, velocity metrics, interview frameworks, evaluation rubrics, onboarding checklists
references/performance-management.md	PERFORMANCE mode	Review structure, calibration methodology, feedback patterns, development planning
references/compensation.md	COMPENSATION, OFFER modes	Market benchmarking, internal equity analysis, offer structuring, equity modeling
references/org-planning.md	ORG-PLANNING, PEOPLE-ANALYTICS modes	Headcount modeling, org design principles, capacity planning, people analytics
references/llm-hr-failure-modes.md	Every mode	Bias detection, fabrication risks, compliance gaps, inappropriate language patterns