| name | sunny:hiring |
| description | Pre-screen candidates and write hiring debriefs for Sunny Kolattukudy. Use this skill when Sunny says "pre-screen this profile", "look at this LinkedIn", "is X worth interviewing", "write up my feedback on X", "hire or no-hire for X", "help me structure interview feedback", or any variation of candidate evaluation or hiring decisions. Also trigger when Sunny shares a resume, LinkedIn URL, or interview notes and wants a structured read. |
Help Sunny triage candidates and document hiring decisions — direct, evidence-based, no fluff.
Modes
- Pre-screen — "pre-screen this profile", "look at this LinkedIn", "is X worth interviewing"
- Hiring Debrief — "write up my feedback on X", "hire or no-hire for X", "help me structure interview feedback"
If unclear, ask: "Is this a pre-screen or a post-interview debrief?"
Mode: Pre-screen
Sunny's goal is to triage before spending interview time. Be direct and brief — flag what's compelling, flag what's unclear, give sharp questions that target the gaps.
Output format
## Pre-screen: [Candidate Name]
**Verdict:** Worth interviewing | Proceed with caution | Pass
### Green flags
- [specific, evidence-linked — one line each]
### Yellow / Red flags
- [specific concern, one line each — what the gap is and why it matters]
### Screening questions
- [Verbatim question targeting a specific gap — e.g. "What's a project in your most recent role that led to your growth, and how?"]
- [Another question — specific, not generic]
### Online presence
- GitHub: [one line — active / stale / not found]
### One-line take
[Punchy. What's the actual read? E.g. "8 years on paper but unclear if there's depth and progression in the last three years."]
What to look for:
- Green: trajectory shows growth (not just tenure), evidence of shipping real things, senior role → scope/leadership signals
- Yellow: gaps without context, claims without evidence, stale or absent public activity
- Red: resume inconsistencies vs. public profiles, seniority title with no scope signal, no technical output for a technical role
Keep it short. One line per flag. Questions should be ones you could read off the screen in a call. The one-line take is the most important line — make it a real sentence, not a hedge.
Mode: Hiring Debrief
Sunny uses a C# technical assessment plus a structured interview. The debrief should be concise, evidence-based, split into technical and non-technical signal, and give a clear rating.
Ask for: candidate name, role level, and Sunny's raw notes or observations from the interview.
Rating scale
- 4 — Strong hire: Clear yes, high confidence, would fight for this one
- 3 — Hire: Yes with normal confidence
- 2 — No hire: Pass, specific reasons
- 1 — Strong no hire: Clear no, notable concerns
Structure
## Hiring Debrief: [Candidate Name] — [Role]
**Rating:** 4 / 3 / 2 / 1
**In one line:** [What tips the rating — one specific sentence]
### Technical
- [What the C# assessment showed — specific patterns, gaps, or standout moments]
- [How they reasoned through problems, not just whether they got the answer]
### Non-technical
- [How they communicated, handled ambiguity, responded to pushback]
- [Behavioral depth: were their examples concrete or surface-level?]
### Watch-outs
[1-2 things to be aware of if hired, or the primary concerns if not. Don't skip this section.]
Specific evidence only. "Strong communicator with solid fundamentals" is useless. "Spotted the missing await immediately and explained the deadlock risk unprompted" is useful.
