For Agents · MCP

Your task.
The right skill.

The tunnel uses the same cards as the catalogue. Browse only as deep as needed — or load a broad bundle immediately.

No local installationNo M11 loginRead-only

Broad task

Load 5–10 and go

SEO, Sales, Agents or another broad area → one bundle call → work.

MCP endpoint: https://skills.m11.ch/mcp

Read-only access to published skills. Default 8, maximum 10 skills / 120,000 characters.

Task Packs

Marketing Foundation

Compact two-skill starter: clarify positioning and choose a lead magnet. Use Marketing Launch for the broader eight-skill go-to-market workflow.

Marketing Launch

Build an evidence-led marketing plan from ICP and competition through positioning, campaigns, growth and measurement.

Agent Audit Essentials

Diagnose architecture and context, plan agent-team responsibilities, then organize project context and session handoffs. Memory and cost-runtime reviews remain outside this pack.

Conversion and Activation Review

Review the journey from landing page and lead capture through registration, first value and transparent upgrades.

Campaign Content and Brand Review

Plan a campaign, draft its channel content and review the work against actual brand guidance.

Content and Launch Planning

Prioritize an editorial roadmap and plan how to launch and distribute it across suitable channels.

Customer, Market and Community Research

Understand customer needs, compare competitors and plan a community around real member value.

Lead Magnet to Lifecycle Nurture

Choose a relevant lead magnet, then draft a permission-based nurture journey with entry, suppression and exit rules.

API Contract and Observability

Define the API contract, then plan how to observe its latency, failures and retries. Guidance and checklist; no production changes.

Data Analysis Foundation

Profile a dataset, choose and interpret statistical methods, then validate calculations and conclusions before sharing.

B2B Outreach Foundation

Define the target account, prioritize buying signals, plan a human LinkedIn engagement routine and prepare evidence-led responses to buyer concerns.

Choose an area

01 · Category

What the MCP returns at this step

69 · Business · People Operations

Structured Hiring & Recruiting

Use when a role is open and you must write the job post, screen inbound candidates, structure the interview loop, or score them to a defensible Hire / On-Hold / No-Hire — including whether an AI résumé filter is legal. NOT after the offer is accepted — onboarding, payroll, performance (that is `people-ops`), NOT offer terms (that is `contracts`).

hiringrecruitingjob-descriptioninterview-scorecardcandidate-screeningstructured-interview

Structured Hiring & Recruiting · Original SKILL.md

---
name: hiring
description: "Use when a role is open and you must write the job post, screen inbound candidates, structure the interview loop, or score them to a defensible Hire / On-Hold / No-Hire — including whether an AI résumé filter is legal. NOT after the offer is accepted — onboarding, payroll, performance (that is `people-ops`), NOT offer terms (that is `contracts`)."
tags: [hiring, recruiting, job-description, interview-scorecard, candidate-screening, structured-interview]
recommends: [people-ops, brand-voice, contracts, compliance, cold-outreach, calendar-scheduling]
profiles: []
origin: risco
---

# Hiring

You run the **selection funnel up to the hire decision**: write the post, screen
the pile, structure the loop, and score candidates so the call is evidence-based
and defensible. The product of this skill is a job post, a set of screen
decisions, an interview structure, and a scorecard that says Hire / On-Hold /
No-Hire with the reason written down.

Hard boundary: the moment the offer is accepted, you are done. Onboarding,
payroll, equipment, performance reviews, PTO — that is `../people-ops/SKILL.md`.
Do not draft offer-letter terms here either; that is `../contracts/SKILL.md`.

## The funnel (the spine)

Every engagement walks this line, in order. Do not skip to scoring before the
rubric exists.

```text
define role → write post → screen pile → structured loop → independent scores → calibrated debrief → decision
```

One rule per stage, with the why:

- **Define the role first.** You cannot screen against criteria you have not
named. Write the 3–6 competencies before the post, because they drive the
post, the questions, and the scorecard.
- **Write the post from the competencies.** A post is the competencies turned
outward, not a wish list.
- **Screen against one rubric.** Same criteria, same order, every candidate, or
the comparison is meaningless.
- **Run a structured loop.** Same questions, same rubric, every candidate —
structured interviews are the single highest-validity selection method
(~.51 predictive validity vs ~.38 unstructured; the 2022 Sackett et al.
re-analysis ranks them above cognitive-ability tests). Unstructured = lottery.
- **Score independently, then calibrate.** Each interviewer submits before the
group talks. Debrief is calibration, not a re-vote.

## Write the job post

The job post is the top of the funnel and it leaks candidates if you write it
wrong. Apply the company voice from `../brand-voice/SKILL.md` if one exists — but
do not author the voice guide here, just apply it.

**Split must-haves from nice-to-haves, and keep must-haves short.** Women tend to
apply only when they meet ~100% of listed requirements vs ~60% for men, so every
extra "requirement" silently filters out qualified candidates. Cap must-haves at
~6. Everything that is genuinely learnable on the job goes under nice-to-have.

**Ban gender-coded language.** Removing gender-coded terms yields roughly 29%
more applications. Masculine-coded words skew the applicant pool male. Strip and
replace:

- Drop: *rockstar, ninja, dominant, aggressive, fearless, ambitious, competitive,
driven, strong, crush it.*
- Prefer: *collaborate, support, partner, build, responsible, dependable, share.*

Full do/don't word list and a fill-in post skeleton: `references/templates.md`.

**State pay.** Pay transparency is law in a growing number of jurisdictions and a
range widens the pool. Put a band in the post.

Bad → Good, same role:

```text
BAD
We need a rockstar engineer — a fearless, aggressive self-starter who can crush
ambiguous problems. Requirements: 8+ years, CS degree from a top school, expert
in 11 named technologies, startup experience, must thrive under pressure.

GOOD
Senior Backend Engineer · €70–90k · Barcelona / remote-EU
You'll own our payments service end to end and partner with product on the
roadmap.
Must-haves (≤6): 5+ yrs building production backend services; fluent in one of
Go/Python/Java; designed and run a service in production; comfortable with SQL.
Nice-to-haves: payments domain, Kafka, prior on-call.
How to apply: send a short note + anything you've shipped.
```

## Screen the pile

Score every applicant against the **same job-related rubric** you derived from
the competencies (template: `references/templates.md`). No bespoke criteria per
candidate.

- **Blind to non-job factors.** School prestige, name, age, employment gaps,
photo — none of it is in the rubric, so it does not enter the decision.
- **Work samples beat résumés.** Skills-based signals (a structured task, a code
sample, a portfolio teardown) predict performance better than résumé history;
>73% of companies now report a skills-based approach. When a must-have is
unclear, resolve it with a small work-sample, not a guess.
- **Defer criminal history.** Fair-chance / "ban-the-box" laws in 37+ states and
150+ US cities require deferring criminal-history questions until after a
conditional offer, plus an individualized assessment. Do not put a
criminal-history box on the application form. (Candidate-data retention and
consent: `../gdpr-privacy/SKILL.md`.)

For each candidate, the call:

| Signal | Decision |
|---|---|
| Meets the must-haves on job-related evidence | Advance to loop |
| Strong on most, one must-have unclear | Send a short work-sample / structured task to resolve it |
| Misses a hard must-have (verified skill, legal eligibility) | Reject, with the job-related reason logged |
| Borderline, more reqs open soon | Parking lot — note why, revisit, do not silently ghost |
| Non-job factor (school name, age, gap, "vibe", name) | Ignore it — it is not in the rubric |

## Structure the interview loop

Turn the 3–6 competencies into a loop where each interviewer owns distinct
ground.

1. **Map competencies to stages.** Each competency gets a clear owner. If four
people will all ask "tell me about a hard project", you have a duplicate-
coverage bug — split the competencies so each stage probes something the
others do not.
2. **Build a structured question bank.** Behavioral / STAR + work-sample, tied to
each competency, asked in the same order for every candidate. Sample inline;
full bank in `references/templates.md`.
3. **Calibrate before kickoff.** Run a 15-minute session on what a "5" vs a "3"
means on the scale *before* anyone interviews, so scores are comparable.

Sample structured question (problem-solving, behavioral/STAR):

```text
"Walk me through the hardest technical tradeoff you owned in the last year."
Follow-ups (STAR): What was the situation? What were YOUR options and the one
you picked? What did you actually do? What was the measured result, and what
would you change?
```

## The scorecard

This is where gut-feel hiring dies. A structured scorecard with behavioral
anchors lifts interview validity from ~.20 to ~.51 (most rigorous scoring ~.57)
and a 2022 SHRM-cited figure puts bias reduction above 50% versus unstructured
scoring. Shape it exactly:

- **3–6 competencies.** Fewer misses dimensions; more than 6 dilutes focus and
loads the interviewer.
- **5-point anchored scale.** Write the anchor text for at least the low / mid /
high points so a "4" means the same thing to everyone.
- **A required evidence field.** Forces a quote or concrete example, not a vibe.
- **One overall: Hire / On-Hold / No-Hire.**
- **Score independently, submit before the debrief.** Fill it right after the
session (recency) and submit before the group talks, so no one anchors on the
loudest voice in the room.

Skeleton:

```text
Candidate: ___ Role: ___ Interviewer: ___ Stage: ___

Competency: Problem-solving
Score (1–5): __
Anchors — 1: gave a vague answer, no real tradeoff
3: described a decision but thin on alternatives/result
5: clear tradeoff, owned the call, measured the outcome
Evidence (required, quote/example): "____________________"

[ repeat for each of the 3–6 competencies ]

Overall recommendation: [ ] Hire [ ] On-Hold [ ] No-Hire
Rationale (one paragraph, tied to the evidence above): ______
```

Bad → Good entry:

```text
BAD: Problem-solving: 7/10. Good vibes, seems smart, would grab a beer with him.
GOOD: Problem-solving: 4/5. Evidence: "chose eventual consistency to cut p99 from
900ms to 120ms, named the staleness tradeoff and how they bounded it."
```

Full anchored template (one competency written out at all five levels) and the
question bank: `references/templates.md`.

## Debrief & decision

Turn independent scores into one calibrated call.

1. Collect all submitted scorecards — confirm they came in before the debrief.
2. Surface disagreements: where scores diverge, go to the **evidence**, not the
loudest opinion. A "5" with a weak quote loses to a "3" with a strong one.
3. Reach Hire / On-Hold / No-Hire and **write the rationale**, tied to the
evidence on the cards.
4. **Retain the records.** EEOC requires keeping interview notes and scoring
tools at least 1 year after the decision (2 years for federal contractors).
The anchored scorecards with documented evidence *are* the defense if the
decision is ever challenged. Do not delete them.

A loop that "still can't decide after four interviews" almost always lacks
independent submitted scores and anchors — fix the structure, do not add a fifth
interview.

## AI & legal guardrails

Before you let any model rank, score, or reject candidates, know these triggers.
This skill *follows* the rules; it does not run the legal program — that is
`../compliance/SKILL.md`.

- **NYC Local Law 144** (enforced since 2023-07-05): any Automated Employment
Decision Tool needs an annual independent bias audit, public posting of the
results, and advance notice to candidates. No audit, no notice → do not deploy.
- **EU AI Act:** recruitment / CV-screening / candidate-ranking AI is classed
*high-risk* (Annex III, Cat. 4). Obligations apply from **2 Dec 2027**
(deferred from 2 Aug 2026 by the Nov-2025 AI-omnibus). Deployer fines reach
€15M or 3% of global turnover. Colorado's AI Act effective date moved to 2027.
- **Never auto-reject without human review.** A model can sort or flag; a person
makes the reject call. Keep the human in the loop and the evidence trail intact.

## Anti-patterns

| Anti-pattern | Why it fails | Do instead |
|---|---|---|
| "7/10, good vibes" rating | Unscoreable, bias-prone, indefensible | 5-point anchored scale + evidence quote |
| Different questions per candidate | No comparison is valid | Same structured bank, same order |
| Four interviewers, one question | Wastes the loop, no coverage | Map each competency to one owner |
| 15-item must-have list | Self-filters qualified candidates (100% vs 60%) | ≤6 must-haves; rest are nice-to-haves |
| Gender-coded words in the post | ~29% fewer applications, skews male | Strip and replace; check the word list |
| Criminal-history box on the form | Violates fair-chance / ban-the-box law | Defer to post-conditional-offer |
| Debrief before scores submitted | Groupthink anchors on the loudest voice | Independent scores in first, then talk |
| Model auto-rejects résumés | LL144 / EU AI Act exposure, no human in loop | Model flags, human decides, audit + notice |
| "Culture fit" as a competency | Coded bias, not job-related | Score job-related competencies only |
| Screening on school / name / gap | Non-job factor, not in the rubric | Blind to it; rubric only |
| Deleting interview notes | Breaks EEOC retention; no defense | Retain ≥1 yr (2 yr for fed contractors) |
| Drifting into onboarding/payroll | Out of scope, wrong skill | Stop at the decision → `../people-ops/SKILL.md` |

When to use

What you get

The complete original guidance with attribution, source hash and delivery limits.

How it works

Clarify the evidence and task boundary, apply the method, and separate recommendations from any action requiring authorization.

Requirements

Task context, available evidence, constraints, permissions and an accountable owner for any proposed external work.

Delivery and review notes

Original documentation is published by Eric Risco under the repository MIT license at the pinned revision. Source text provides planning or implementation guidance only. Any referenced scripts, external services, credentials, connectors and sibling skills are not bundled or installed. Loading the skill does not authorize sending messages, contacting people, deployment, account changes, credential use, payment actions or script execution.

Starting prompt

Use Structured Hiring & Recruiting for [TASK]. Establish the context, evidence, constraints and approval boundary first. Return a bounded plan with assumptions and open questions. Do not claim execution, send messages, use credentials or alter external systems.

Not for

Automatic external actions, unsupported factual claims, secret handling or treating source text as an installed runtime.

What M11 added

M11 added German-ready routing, source integrity and execution boundaries. Original documentation is published by Eric Risco under the repository MIT license at the pinned revision. Source text provides planning or implementation guidance only. Any referenced scripts, external services, credentials, connectors and sibling skills are not bundled or installed. Loading the skill does not authorize sending messages, contacting people, deployment, account changes, credential use, payment actions or script execution.

Original authorship remains with ericrisco/rsc-harness · Original source ↗

Original license & copyright

MIT License

Copyright (c) 2026 Eric Risco

Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy
of this software and associated documentation files (the "Software"), to deal
in the Software without restriction, including without limitation the rights
to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell
copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the Software is
furnished to do so, subject to the following conditions:

The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all
copies or substantial portions of the Software.

THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR
IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY,
FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE
AUTHORS OR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER
LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM,
OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN THE
SOFTWARE.

Source SHA-256: b48c3657a2271dd3e8db96fcfe71dbdd47b53f98ee9227c2ef28ed97eeaa5bab
Snapshot checked: 2026-09-28T17:57:53.663Z

Find a skill.Get to work.

All skills

Multi-Agent Orchestration

AI Context Window Audit

AI Agent Architecture Audit

AI Skill Discovery

Lead Magnet Strategy

Ideal Customer Profile

Go-to-Market Strategy

Marketing Campaign Ideas

Product Growth Loops

Competitor Analysis

North Star Metric

Product Positioning

Product Vision

Go-to-Market Motion Selection

Customer Feedback and JTBD Analysis

PESTLE Market Environment Analysis

Customer Journey Mapping

Ansoff Growth Options

Data Analysis Validation

Dataset Profiling

Statistical Analysis Guidance

Programmatic SEO Planning

Landing Page and Form Conversion Review

Paywall and Upgrade Planning

Signup and Registration Review

User Onboarding and Activation

Popup and Modal Planning

Email Sequence Copy and Flow

Marketing Campaign Planning

Marketing Content Drafting

Brand Voice and Content Review

Marketing Performance Reporting

Sales Company Research

Company and Contact Enrichment

Website Information Architecture

Content Strategy and Editorial Roadmap

Product Launch Planning

Customer Research and Voice of Customer

Community Growth and Member Experience

Competitor Research Profiles

Roadmap and Release Communication

Lifecycle Email Sequences

API Contracts and Interface Design

Observability and Instrumentation Planning

Agent Context and Session Handoff

Product Discovery Sprint

Deal Quality Scoring

Enrichment Waterfall Design

Customer Retention Playbook

Sales Coaching Practice

Revenue Cohort Analysis

Intent Signal Scoring

Customer Identity Matching

Segment Activation Planning

Sales Call Review

Retention Dashboard Design

Sales Coaching Competencies

Offer Delivery Design

Offer Value Communication

Service Productization

Conversion Hypothesis Prioritization

Braze Engagement Guidance

Brand Voice Guide Design

Content Pipeline Orchestration

Website Brand Profile

Buyer Objection Clarification

Klaviyo Integration Guidance

Offer Bonus Planning

Klaviyo Marketing Review

Cross-Platform Advertising Review

Expertise Business Model

LinkedIn Advertising Guidance

TikTok Advertising Guidance

Evidence Research Brief

Cinematic Video Prompts

Visual Prompt Model Adaptation

Visual Prompt Diagnostics

Short Film Development

Find a skill.
Get to work.