Hiring Screener

# Hiring Screener

Turn an inbox full of applications into a short list the owner can act on today, scored fairly and defensibly.

`job-post-builder` produces the post, the interview guide, and the scoring rubric. This skill runs the funnel from there: screen, rank, reply, schedule, onboard.

## Step 1 — Get the rubric first

**Nothing gets scored until there is a rubric.** The rubric is the list of skills, experience, and requirements stated in the job post. It is the only thing candidates are measured against.

Look for it in this order:

1. The rubric from `job-post-builder`, if that ran 2. The job post itself, from Drive, M365, Gmail, or uploaded 3. Built with the owner now, from the post — takes five minutes

If there is no post and no rubric, stop and build one with the owner before reading a single resume. Screening without a rubric means scoring on impressions, and impressions are where bias lives. Method is in `reference/rubric.md`.

## Step 2 — Score only what the rubric says

Every candidate is scored against the rubric criteria and nothing else.

**Never score on:** name, age, gender, photo, address or neighborhood, school prestige, employment gaps, accent or writing polish beyond what the job requires, or how the resume looks. None of these appear in the rubric, several are unlawful to use, and all of them are noise the owner would not defend out loud.

This is not only an ethics rule. A shortlist built on the job's actual requirements is a *better* shortlist — the strongest field hire in a trade often has the worst-formatted resume in the stack.

Full constraint and the anonymization pass are in `reference/fair_screening.md`.

## Step 3 — Read the applications

Sources, in order of what is usually available:

- **Gmail** — the hiring inbox, with attachments - **Uploaded files** — resumes, applications, cover letters. The common path - **Drive or M365** — an applicant folder the owner names, in a store confirmed as theirs before the first read (`../../shared/tenant-scope.md`)

For each candidate, extract only rubric-relevant evidence: what they have done, for how long, with what tools, at what scale, plus any stated requirement met or missed.

**Quote the evidence.** A score with no quoted line behind it is an opinion. Extraction rules are in `reference/fair_screening.md`, alongside what to read past.

## Step 4 — Rank and band

Score each criterion, weight per the rubric, and sort. Then band into four groups: interview, maybe, no, and cannot assess.

**"Cannot assess" is a real band and it matters.** A resume that never mentions whether they have the required license is not a rejection — it is a missing fact and a two-line email away from an answer. Dropping those candidates silently loses good people over formatting.

Show the owner the top candidates with the evidence attached, and one line on anyone whose rubric score is depressed by a missing fact rather than by a missing skill. The owner is the decision-maker; this skill produces the ordered, evidenced list they decide from.

## Step 5 — Draft the replies

Everyone who applied hears back. That is the standard, and for an SMB it is also reputation management in a town where word travels.

Three message types, all drafted in the owner's voice per [the shared voice profile](../../shared/voice-profile.md). If that file holds no profile yet, follow its "When there is no sample" instruction — ask for three emails the owner was happy with; if they decline, draft plainly and say the replies are un-voiced rather than inventing a personality:

- **Invite to interview** — with the times offered - **Hold** — honest that they are under consideration, with a date they will hear - **Decline** — kind, prompt, and honest, without false hope or invented reasons

Templates and tone in `reference/candidate_comms.md`. Rejections go out fast; a two-week silence costs the owner more goodwill than the no ever does.

**Nothing sends without approval.** Show the drafts, get an explicit yes, then send. A misdirected rejection is not recoverable.

**Name the recipients in the batch summary, not just the count.** "31 declines" hides the one person who should have been in the interview group; "31 declines — Alvarez, Brennan, Cho, …" is checkable in ten seconds, which is the only moment a mis-sort gets caught.

**Without Gmail, the drafts are the deliverable.** Hand the owner every message, labelled with who it goes to, ready to paste. That is a complete outcome, not a partial one.

## Step 6 — Schedule the interviews

With Google Calendar connected, find real open slots against the owner's actual availability, and offer two or three per candidate.

Every invite is approved before it goes out — the owner sees who, when, how long, and what the invite says. Then send, with the interview guide from `job-post-builder` attached for the interviewer.

Without Calendar, propose times from what the owner tells you and let them send. That is a complete outcome.

## Step 7 — Onb