| name | Screening Rubric Builder |
| description | Turn a job description into a weighted, anchored rubric for the pre-interview resume/CV screen so applicants are filtered against the same job-relevant criteria, in writing, before opinions form. Use when you have a JD and an applicant pile and need to decide who advances to interviews, set up a fair resume screen, or replace gut-feel resume sorting with a defensible filter. Do NOT use when building the interview-loop scorecard interviewers fill in during or after interviews — use hiring-scorecard instead. |
Screening Rubric Builder
Convert a JD into a screening rubric specific enough that two reviewers reading the same resume reach similar advance/reject decisions. This is the pre-interview stage only: it decides who gets an interview, not how interviews are scored.
Workflow
- Derive 5-8 screenable competencies from the JD. Extract them from the role's outcomes and must-haves. Each must be observable from an application (resume, cover letter, portfolio, work samples) and job-relevant — "ships schemas that survive scale," not "smart." Drop anything you cannot tie to a stated JD requirement. Never use "culture fit"; if culture matters, decompose it into named, assessable behaviors.
- Weight each competency by impact on success. Assign weights summing to 100% that reflect how much each predicts performance in this specific role. Core role skills outweigh nice-to-haves. Write a one-line rationale per weight so it is defensible across the whole applicant slate. Never weight a proxy for a protected trait.
- Write an anchored scale. Use a 1-4 scale with written behavioral anchors per competency: what a 1 application shows, what a 4 shows, with concrete evidence examples drawn from what is visible in an application. Anchors are what turn a vibe into a rating.
- Require an evidence note per score. For every score the reviewer must cite the specific line, project, or artifact in the application that justifies it. No cited evidence, no score.
- Set the advance rule up front. Define the weighted threshold to advance to interviews before reviewing any applicant, plus minimum scores on each must-have competency. Pre-committing the bar prevents post-hoc rationalization. A low total with one standout area is a reviewer conversation, not an automatic pass or reject.
- Apply the rubric identically to every applicant for the role, and keep the scored records for consistency review.
Quality Bar
- Every competency traces to a specific JD requirement and is judgeable from the application alone.
- Weights sum to 100% and each carries a written rationale.
- Each competency has anchors for both ends of the scale, not just a label.
- The advance threshold and per-must-have minimums are written before the first applicant is read.
- A second reviewer scoring the same application from the same rubric lands within one point.
Do NOT
- Do NOT score the interview loop or design interviewer scorecards — that is hiring-scorecard's job; stop at the advance/reject decision.
- Do NOT auto-advance or auto-reject anyone; the rubric assists human judgment, it does not replace it.
- Do NOT include or infer age, gender, race, disability, family status, or background, or any proxy for them.
- Do NOT assess the same competency in both the screen and a later interview stage with no plan — measure it once, in the stage where it is most visible.
- Do NOT keep any competency you cannot defend as job-related; flag and cut it.
