| name | tremendous-interview-notes |
| description | Write structured interview notes from raw bullet-point observations. Use when the user says "write interview notes", "write up the interview", "format my interview notes", or shares raw bullet-point notes from a candidate interview. Covers coding interviews, system design, PR review discussions, and any interview format. |
| argument-hint | [raw notes or 'help'] |
Interview Notes
Write structured interview notes from raw observations. The user takes quick bullet-point notes during an interview, then this skill produces polished, structured notes ready for the hiring panel.
Input
The user provides raw bullet-point notes from the interview. These are informal, shorthand, and may include:
- Observations about what the candidate did/said
- Timestamps or sequence markers
- Links (CoderPad, PR, etc.)
- Discussion topics and candidate responses
- Candidate questions
- The user's gut reactions
Output Format
Generate notes following this exact structure:
**tl;dr** [verdict]. [One-sentence summary, capitalized like a normal sentence].
[link to exercise if applicable]
[1-2 narrative paragraphs describing what happened, key moments, and overall impression]
[If candidate asked questions, include:]
[Candidate's name]'s questions:
- [question 1]
- [question 2]
[Optional: caveats, context, or notable observations]
**Pros:**
- [pro 1]
- [pro 2]
- ...
**Cons:**
- [con 1]
- [con 2]
- ...
Style Rules
These are mandatory — they reflect the user's actual writing voice.
-
Verdict appears in bold **tl;dr** followed by the verdict and a period. The sentence after the verdict is a normal sentence: capitalize it. Only the tl;dr label itself stays lowercase. Example: **tl;dr** leaning Yes. Delivered comprehensive implementation with one security flaw.
-
Verdict options:
- "Strong No" — clear miss, significant concerns
- "No" or "leaning No" — didn't meet the bar
- "on the fence" — genuinely split
- "Yes" or "leaning Yes" — meets the bar (use "leaning" when not a strong signal)
- "Strong Yes" — exceptional
- For referrals, lean toward "Yes" when on the fence
-
Voice: Direct, concise, first-person. No filler, no hedging. State observations as facts. Use contractions naturally.
-
Words to avoid: "thoughtful" as praise for the person ("she's thoughtful"); describing the manner of an action is fine ("used AI in a thoughtful way"). Also "conversationalist" (too formal), "insightful", "impressive" (too enthusiastic). Use concrete descriptions instead.
-
Pros/Cons: Each bullet is a specific, observable thing the candidate did — not vague impressions. Include context when it matters (e.g., "Whenever I nudged her, she immediately understood the problem and would fix the issue").
-
Narrative paragraphs: Describe what happened chronologically. Include key turning points. Mention specific code patterns, questions, or decisions the candidate made. Keep it to 1-2 paragraphs.
-
Use the /alex-writing-at-work skill for voice and tone calibration.
-
Length: The whole write-up fits in roughly half a page (~350 words). Don't re-describe the exercise artifact in detail; reviewers can click the link, and a detailed summary is expensive to verify against the source. Spend the words on judgment signals (how the candidate thinks, decides, communicates), not inventory.
-
Raw notes ride along in Ashby: Alex usually pastes his raw notes at the bottom of the Ashby entry. The write-up doesn't need the full content of the meeting, only the highlights that weigh on the decision.
Placeholders
If you don't have enough information for a field, add a placeholder in brackets: [candidate name], [add-coderpad-link-here], [verdict — need more context]. The user will fill these in.
Examples
See the interview note templates in the project file: [[Tremendous - projects - 2026 - PR Review Interview Scorecard]]
The user has shared two example pairs (raw → final) that demonstrate the expected style and depth. Match that level of specificity and directness.
