conducting-interviews

name	conducting-interviews
description	Run structured behavioral HIRING interviews: plan, questions, scorecard, debrief. See also: conducting-user-interviews (product research).

Conducting Interviews (Structured, Behavioral)

Scope

Covers

• Preparing and running structured interviews (screen + loop) with consistent criteria
• Behavioral interviewing mapped to competencies/values
• Getting to “substance over polish” (avoiding “confident but shallow” signal)
• Capturing evidence, scoring consistently, and writing a debrief-ready summary

When to use

• “Help me conduct interviews for a .”
• “Create an interview script / interview question set / scorecard for .”
• “Design an interview loop and structured rubric for .”
• “Improve interviewer consistency and reduce bias.”

When NOT to use

• You need to define the role outcomes or write the job description (use writing-job-descriptions first)
• You need to make a final hiring decision, design work samples, or run reference checks (use evaluating-candidates)
• You need to conduct user/customer research interviews (use conducting-user-interviews — completely different skill)
• You need to onboard the person after hiring (use onboarding-new-hires)
• You need legal/HR compliance guidance or to adjudicate complex employment risk (this skill is not legal advice)
• You need compensation/offer strategy or negotiation coaching

Inputs

Minimum required

• Role + level + function (e.g., “Senior PM”, “Engineering Manager”)
• Interview stage(s) to design/run (screen, hiring manager, panel, etc.) + duration(s)
• Evaluation criteria: 4–8 competencies/values to measure (or your existing rubric)
• Company/team context candidates should know (mission, what’s hard, why now)
• Candidate materials (resume/portfolio) + any areas to probe

Missing-info strategy

• Ask up to 5 questions from references/INTAKE.md.
• If criteria aren’t provided, propose a default criteria set and clearly label it as an assumption.

Outputs (deliverables)

Produce an Interview Execution Pack in Markdown (in-chat; or as files if requested):

1. Interview plan (stage purpose, criteria, agenda, timeboxes)
2. Question map (questions → competency/value → what good looks like → follow-up probes)
3. Interviewer script (opening, transitions, probes, close)
4. Notes + scorecard (rating anchors + evidence capture)
5. Debrief summary template (evidence-based strengths/concerns + hire/no-hire signal + follow-ups)
6. Risks / Open questions / Next steps (always included)

Templates: references/TEMPLATES.md
Expanded guidance: references/WORKFLOW.md

Workflow (7 steps)

1) Intake + define the stage

• Inputs: user request; references/INTAKE.md.
• Actions: Confirm role, stage(s), duration, and who else interviews. Identify must-measure criteria and any “must not” red flags.
• Outputs: Interview brief + assumptions/unknowns list.
• Checks: You can state the stage goal in one sentence (e.g., “screen for X; sell Y; decide Z”).

2) Lock evaluation criteria (don’t improvise later)

• Inputs: competencies/values; role context.
• Actions: Choose 4–8 criteria; define 1–2 “strong” and “weak” anchors per criterion. Ensure each criterion is observable via evidence.
• Outputs: Criteria table with anchors.
• Checks: Every criterion has a definition + evidence hints; no criterion is “vibe”.

3) Build the question map (behavioral first)

• Inputs: criteria table.
• Actions: Write 1–2 primary questions per criterion (behavioral: “tell me about a time…”). Add probes that force specifics (role, constraints, trade-offs, results, what you’d do differently). Add two global questions: “How did you prepare?” and “Why here?”
• Outputs: Question map table.
• Checks: Each question maps to exactly one primary criterion; no double-barreled questions.

4) Write the interviewer script (runbook)

• Inputs: question map; timeboxes.
• Actions: Assemble an interview flow: opening (set context + structure), question sequence, note-taking reminders, and a consistent close: “Is there anything else you want to make sure we covered?”
• Outputs: Interviewer script with timestamps.
• Checks: Script fits in time; includes “sell” moments appropriate to stage; includes candidate questions time.

5) Prepare for “substance over polish”

• Inputs: question map; candidate materials.
• Actions: Add “substance checks” for polished communicators (ask for concrete examples, counterfactuals, and specific decisions). Add “structure help” for less polished candidates (rephrase, clarify what’s being asked) without leading.
• Outputs: Substance-vs-delivery guardrails embedded in the script.
• Checks: The plan reduces false positives from confident delivery and false negatives from imperfect structure.

6) Score using evidence (immediately after)

• Inputs: notes; scorecard template.
• Actions: Fill the scorecard with evidence snippets before discussing with others. Rate each criterion with anchors. Write a 5–8 sentence evidence-based summary and list follow-up questions.
• Outputs: Completed notes + scorecard + summary.
• Checks: Every rating has supporting evidence; the overall recommendation is consistent with criterion ratings.

7) Debrief + quality gate + finalize pack

• Inputs: completed scorecard; debrief template.
• Actions: Produce the debrief-ready packet; run references/CHECKLISTS.md and score with references/RUBRIC.md. Include Risks/Open questions/Next steps.
• Outputs: Final Interview Execution Pack.
• Checks: Clear recommendation + uncertainty; fair process; next steps defined (additional interview, reference check, work sample, etc.).

Quality gate (required)

• Use references/CHECKLISTS.md and references/RUBRIC.md.
• Always include: Risks, Open questions, Next steps.

Examples

Example 1 (Screen): “Create a 30-minute phone screen for a Senior Product Manager. I want to evaluate product sense, execution, and collaboration. Output the Interview Execution Pack with a question map and scorecard.”
Expected: timeboxed script, behavioral questions, clear anchors, and a scorecard that captures evidence.

Example 2 (Loop): “Design a structured interview loop for a Staff Engineer, including a hiring manager interview and a cross-functional panel. Map questions to our values and include a debrief template.”
Expected: stage goals, consistent criteria across interviewers, and artifacts that make debriefs evidence-based.

Boundary example (redirect): “Help me decide which of these 3 candidates to hire based on their interview notes and references.” Response: redirect to evaluating-candidates — this skill designs and runs interviews, it does not synthesize cross-candidate hiring decisions.

Boundary example (wrong domain): “I need to interview 10 users about their onboarding experience with our product.” Response: redirect to conducting-user-interviews — this skill is for hiring interviews, not user/customer research.

Boundary example (missing criteria): “Just tell me if this candidate is good; I don’t have criteria or notes.” Response: require criteria + evidence; propose default criteria and ask the user to paste notes or run a structured interview first.

Anti-patterns (common failure modes)

1. ”Wing it” interviewing — Skipping structured criteria and question maps, then relying on gut feel. This produces inconsistent signals and legal risk. Always lock criteria before writing questions.
2. Brainteaser / hypothetical-only questions — Asking “How many golf balls fit in a school bus?” or purely hypothetical scenarios instead of behavioral evidence. These predict interview prep, not job performance.
3. Halo/horns from first 5 minutes — Letting initial rapport (or lack thereof) color all subsequent scoring. Mitigate by scoring each criterion independently with evidence before writing an overall summary.
4. Identical questions for every role — Reusing the same generic question bank regardless of role, level, or competency. Every question should map to a specific criterion for this specific role.
5. Skipping the “substance over polish” check — Rewarding confident, articulate delivery while penalizing candidates who need a moment to organize their thoughts. Always include specificity probes and structural support for less polished communicators.