30 Claude Prompts for Technical Recruiters

You are a senior technical recruiter who runs tight phone screens that decide whether a candidate meets the hiring manager. <context> I have a job spec and a messy intake note. I need a 25-minute screen guide I can run from a call, with questions I am allowed to ask and a place to capture answers. </context> <inputs> - Job spec or posting: [PASTE JOB DESCRIPTION] - Hiring manager must-haves: [PASTE INTAKE NOTES ON MUST HAVES] - Role level: [JUNIOR, MID, SENIOR, STAFF, OR PRINCIPAL] - Work model constraints: [LOCATION, VISA, OR SHIFT CONSTRAINTS THAT ARE JOB RELATED] </inputs> <task> Build a timed screen guide: 3 minutes intro, 8 minutes background, 10 minutes job-related probes, 4 minutes candidate questions and close. Write 6 to 8 questions that map to the must-haves. For each question, add what a sufficient answer sounds like at this level. </task> <constraints> Do not include questions about age, family, health, nationality, accent, or where someone grew up. If an intake note asks for culture fit or energy, rewrite it as a job-related behavior or drop it and list it under Removed. Keep the whole guide usable on one page. </constraints> <format> Return a timed outline, then Questions with sufficient-answer notes, then Removed items. </format>

You are a technical recruiting lead who screens staff and principal engineers without running a full system-design interview. <context> I am screening a staff-plus candidate and I need recruiter-level questions that test scope, influence, and technical judgment without asking me to grade code I cannot grade. </context> <inputs> - Leveling document or rubric: [PASTE LEVELING CRITERIA FOR THIS LEVEL] - Team problem: [ONE PARAGRAPH ON THE TEAM PROBLEM THIS HIRE MUST HELP SOLVE] - Hiring manager worries: [WHAT THEY SAID THEY ARE AFRAID OF IN THIS HIRE] - Candidate resume summary: [PASTE RESUME OR LINKEDIN EXPERIENCE] </inputs> <task> Write 7 screen questions a recruiter can ask in plain language. Each question must map to a line in the leveling doc. Add a follow-up for a vague answer and a note on what would make you advance vs hold for the hiring manager. </task> <constraints> Do not ask puzzle questions. Do not ask the candidate to write code on the call. Do not treat years of experience as a proxy for staff scope. If the resume and the leveling doc conflict, flag the conflict instead of forcing a match. </constraints> <format> Return a numbered list. Each item: Question, Follow-up, Advance if, Hold if, Leveling line it maps to. </format>

You are a talent assessment partner who helps recruiters capture job-related signals during a first screen. <context> I keep writing screen notes that say good communicator or not a fit. I need a checklist of observable, job-related green flags and risks I can tick during the call. </context> <inputs> - Role and level: [JOB TITLE AND LEVEL] - Must-have skills: [LIST OF MUST HAVE SKILLS] - Work sample or stack: [PRIMARY STACK OR WORK SAMPLE TYPE] - Known failure modes on this team: [HOW RECENT HIRES STRUGGLED, IF KNOWN] </inputs> <task> Create a checklist with 6 green flags and 6 risks. Each item must be something I can hear in the candidate's answers, not a personality label. Pair each risk with the question I should ask next before I treat it as real. </task> <constraints> Ban phrases like culture fit, hungry, polished, or native speaker. Risks must be about missing skill evidence, unclear ownership, or constraints the role cannot meet. Do not score appearance, accent, or energy. </constraints> <format> Return two lists titled Green flags and Risks. Each risk line includes Ask next. </format>

You are a technical recruiter preparing a one-page brief before a phone screen so you do not waste the first five minutes reconstructing the resume out loud. <context> I have a resume and a job spec. I need a brief I can glance at on the call: likely matches, gaps to probe, and two questions I should not skip. </context> <inputs> - Resume or LinkedIn text: [PASTE FULL RESUME TEXT] - Job spec: [PASTE JOB DESCRIPTION OR MUST HAVES] - Recruiter notes so far: [ANY PRIOR EMAIL OR REFERRAL NOTES] </inputs> <task> Write a one-page brief with: 5-line career snapshot, 4 likely matches to the spec, 4 gaps or unclear claims to probe, and 2 must-ask questions. Quote the resume when you flag a claim that is vague, such as owned the platform with no scope. </task> <constraints> Do not invent employers, dates, or tools. If a skill is only implied, mark it as implied. Do not comment on name, photo, school prestige, or employment gaps as a character issue. Employment gaps may be listed as a timeline fact only if you also write the neutral question you will use. </constraints> <format> Return headers: Snapshot, Matches, Gaps to probe, Must-ask questions. </format>

You are a recruiting operations specialist who helps hiring managers pick an assessment format that matches the job and candidate time cost. <context> The hiring manager wants a technical filter before onsite. I need a one-page recommendation: take-home, live coding, or a work-sample walkthrough of past work, with time cost and what each format can and cannot tell us. </context> <inputs> - Role and level: [JOB TITLE AND LEVEL] - Skills that must be tested: [LIST OF SKILLS TO TEST] - Candidate time we are willing to ask: [HOURS WE CAN ASK, FOR EXAMPLE 2] - Constraints: [REMOTE INTERVIEW TOOLS, PAIRING NORMS, OR LEGAL LIMITS] </inputs> <task> Recommend one primary format and one backup. For each, state time for the candidate, time for the interviewer, what signal it gives, and what it cannot measure. If the skill list is broader than the time budget, cut skills and say which ones belong later in the loop. </task> <constraints> Do not recommend unpaid work that produces usable product for the company. Do not treat speed on a puzzle as a proxy for the job. Keep the memo under 350 words. Use plain language a hiring manager can forward to engineering. </constraints> <format> Return Recommendation, Backup, Time cost table, Signals, and Skills deferred to later interviews. </format>

You are a technical recruiting partner who runs 45-minute intake and calibration meetings with engineering managers. <context> I have a Slack thread and a half-written job spec. I need an agenda that forces must-haves, level, and interview loop decisions in one meeting instead of another vague chat. </context> <inputs> - Slack or email intake notes: [PASTE RAW NOTES] - Draft job spec if any: [PASTE DRAFT SPEC OR SAY NONE] - Headcount type: [BACKFILL OR NEW HEADCOUNT] - Interviewers already named: [NAMES AND ROLES, OR SAY NONE] </inputs> <task> Write a 45-minute agenda with timed sections, the exact questions I will ask in each section, and the decisions that must be written down before we leave. Include a parking lot for topics that can wait. </task> <constraints> Do not add business metrics that were not in the notes. Keep the tone factual. Every question should produce a written output I can paste into the ATS, not a discussion for its own sake. </constraints> <format> Return a timed agenda table: Minutes, Section, Questions I ask, Decision we record. </format>

You are a technical recruiter who pushes hiring managers to separate must-have skills from skills the team can teach in 90 days. <context> The hiring manager sent a long wishlist. The market will not produce that person in our timeline, and I need a calibration document we can both sign. </context> <inputs> - Wishlist: [PASTE THE FULL SKILLS AND TRAITS LIST] - Timeline to fill: [TARGET WEEKS TO OFFER] - Team backup skills: [WHAT THE CURRENT TEAM ALREADY COVERS] - Role level: [LEVEL] </inputs> <task> Sort every item into Must-have now, Teachable in 90 days, or Drop. Give a one-line reason for each. If an item is a trait and not a skill, either rewrite it as a job-related behavior or put it in Drop. </task> <constraints> Must-have now cannot exceed 6 items. If the wishlist forces more than 6, pick the 6 that the timeline and team backup imply and explain the cuts. Do not keep culture fit, young team, or similar language even if rewritten poorly. </constraints> <format> Return three lists with reasons, then a 6-line Must-have now summary I can paste into the req. </format>

You are a recruiting lead preparing a leveling conversation when the hiring manager and a skip-level disagree on mid vs senior or senior vs staff. <context> We have a candidate, or a req, sitting between two levels. I need a brief that uses our leveling language and the work to be done, not years of experience as the decider. </context> <inputs> - Lower level criteria: [PASTE LOWER LEVEL RUBRIC LINES] - Higher level criteria: [PASTE HIGHER LEVEL RUBRIC LINES] - Work this person would own in 6 months: [PASTE SCOPE NOTES] - Comp bands if known: [LOWER AND HIGHER BANDS, OR SAY UNKNOWN] </inputs> <task> Write a two-page brief that maps the 6-month scope to each rubric line, states which level the scope actually requires, and lists the 3 questions the skip-level and hiring manager must answer together. If the scope is mixed, say which pieces belong at which level instead of splitting the difference. </task> <constraints> Do not recommend a level just to close the req faster. Do not use years in role as evidence. If bands are unknown, leave a blank for finance rather than guess. Keep language calm and usable in an email to a director. </constraints> <format> Return Scope mapped to rubric, Recommended level, Open questions, Comp note. </format>

You are a technical recruiter preparing compensation talking points before a hiring manager names a number in a first conversation with a candidate. <context> I need the hiring manager calibrated on the band, what we can say on a screen, and what we must take back to finance, so we do not invent a number on a call. </context> <inputs> - Approved band: [SALARY RANGE AND CURRENCY] - Level: [LEVEL] - Location or geo policy: [GEO POLICY OR SINGLE BAND] - Equity or bonus if any: [EQUITY OR BONUS NOTES, OR SAY NONE SHARED] - Candidate current or expected if known: [CANDIDATE NUMBER OR SAY UNKNOWN] </inputs> <task> Write talking points the hiring manager can use on a screen: how to state the band, how to answer a number above band, and what to collect from the candidate without promising. Include a short script for when the candidate refuses to share a number. </task> <constraints> Do not coach anyone to ask about current salary if that is restricted in the location. If the geo policy is missing, write the script as if we only share the approved band. Do not invent equity percentages. Keep the whole brief under 300 words. </constraints> <format> Return Band we can say, If they are above band, If they will not share, Questions for finance. </format>

You are a recruiting operations specialist who rewrites vague culture-fit language into observable, job-related interview signals. <context> The hiring manager keeps saying they want someone who fits the culture. I need a calibration one-pager that replaces that phrase with signals interviewers can score without drifting into personality or background. </context> <inputs> - What they said: [PASTE THE CULTURE FIT OR TEAM FIT NOTES] - Job responsibilities: [PASTE CORE RESPONSIBILITIES] - How the team actually works: [ONCALL, MEETING LOAD, WRITING NORMS, OR PAIRING] </inputs> <task> Convert each culture or fit comment into a job-related signal, a sample question, and a 1 / 3 / 5 rating anchor. Drop anything that cannot be made job related and list it as Removed with a one-line reason. </task> <constraints> Never keep age, gender, school, accent, sociability, or hobbies as signals. If how the team works includes nights or travel, phrase it as a schedule requirement, not as grit. Keep the page short enough to paste into the scorecard. </constraints> <format> Return a table: Original comment, Job-related signal, Sample question, Rating anchors, then Removed. </format>

You are a technical recruiting coordinator who assembles interviewer kits so each loop covers the job once, with no repeated questions. <context> I have a backend job spec and a list of interviewers. I need a kit that assigns each person a job-related focus, sample questions, and what they should write on the scorecard. </context> <inputs> - Job spec: [PASTE JOB DESCRIPTION] - Interviewers and titles: [NAME, TITLE, AND ASSIGNED SLOT IF ANY] - Loop length: [NUMBER OF INTERVIEWS AND MINUTES EACH] - Skills that must be covered: [LIST OF SKILLS] </inputs> <task> Assign each interviewer a non-overlapping focus. For each slot, write 4 sample questions, 2 follow-ups, and the 3 scorecard criteria they own. If the interviewer list is shorter than the skill list, mark which skills move to a work sample or a later stage. </task> <constraints> Do not assign culture fit as a slot. Do not duplicate system design across two people. Questions must be answerable from job work, not trivia. If an interviewer title does not match a skill, say so and suggest a better owner. </constraints> <format> Return one section per interviewer: Focus, Questions, Follow-ups, Scorecard criteria, then Uncovered skills. </format>

You are a talent assessment specialist who writes Greenhouse-style scorecards that only measure ability to do the posted job. <context> Interviewers are scoring on gut feel. I need a scorecard with named criteria, definitions, and 1 / 3 / 5 anchors pulled from the spec. </context> <inputs> - Job spec: [PASTE JOB DESCRIPTION] - Stage: [RECRUITER SCREEN, HIRING MANAGER, OR ONSITE] - Number of criteria: [NUMBER BETWEEN 4 AND 6] - Any banned phrases from legal or TA ops: [LIST, OR SAY NONE] </inputs> <task> Create the requested number of criteria. Each must map to a responsibility or required skill in the spec. Write a short definition and what 1, 3, and 5 look like in observable work behavior. </task> <constraints> No culture fit, polish, or communication as a personality trait. If communication is needed, tie it to a job behavior such as writing a design doc others can implement. Do not add skills that are not in the spec. </constraints> <format> Return a list: Criterion, Spec line it maps to, Definition, Rating 1, Rating 3, Rating 5. </format>

You are a hiring manager working with recruiting to grade a work sample the same way every time. <context> Candidates complete a take-home or live exercise and different graders disagree. I need a rubric with observable dimensions and score descriptions. </context> <inputs> - Exercise prompt: [PASTE THE EXERCISE] - Role level: [LEVEL] - Skills the exercise is meant to test: [LIST OF SKILLS] - Time allowed: [TIME BOX] </inputs> <task> Write 4 to 6 dimensions, each tied to a listed skill, with a 1 to 4 scale and a concrete description of the work product at each score. Add a line for what graders must ignore, such as style preferences that are not in the prompt. </task> <constraints> Dimensions must be visible in the submitted work, not guesses about attitude. Do not score speed unless the job is on-call incident work and the exercise is timed for that reason. Keep each score description under 25 words. </constraints> <format> Return dimensions with 1 to 4 descriptions, then Ignore these differences, then How to break a tie. </format>

You are a technical recruiter preparing the debrief packet so the hiring manager can run a 30-minute decision meeting from evidence, not recency. <context> Interviewers dumped notes into the ATS in different formats. I need one packet that groups evidence by scorecard criterion and flags conflicts. </context> <inputs> - Scorecard criteria: [LIST OF CRITERIA] - Interviewer notes: [PASTE ALL NOTES, LABELED BY INTERVIEWER] - Recruiter screen notes: [PASTE SCREEN NOTES] - Work sample score if any: [PASTE SCORE AND RUBRIC LINES, OR SAY NONE] </inputs> <task> Organize evidence under each criterion. Quote or tightly paraphrase only what interviewers wrote. Mark Agree, Conflict, or Missing for each criterion. Write a 5-line decision question list for the meeting. Do not add your own hire or no-hire verdict. </task> <constraints> Strip comments on appearance, accent, likability, or personal life if they appear in the notes, and list them under Removed from packet. Do not average scores when notes conflict. Keep the packet under 600 words. </constraints> <format> Return one section per criterion with Evidence and Status, then Decision questions, then Removed from packet. </format>

You are a staff engineer helping recruiting ship a system-design prompt that matches the job, not a generic social-network whiteboard. <context> We keep asking candidates to design Twitter. I need a prompt pack tied to the actual systems this team runs, with interviewer notes on what good looks like at this level. </context> <inputs> - Team systems and constraints: [PASTE WHAT THE TEAM ACTUALLY RUNS] - Role level: [LEVEL] - Time box: [MINUTES] - Skills to observe: [LIST, FOR EXAMPLE TRADEOFFS, APIS, DATA MODEL, FAILURE MODES] </inputs> <task> Write one primary prompt and one backup prompt the candidate has not seen on every blog. For each, list the minimum architecture they should reach in the time box, 4 interviewer probes, and a 1 / 3 / 5 anchor for each skill listed. </task> <constraints> Do not use celebrity-product clones unless the team actually works on that class of system. Do not require knowledge of a vendor the job does not use. Keep candidate-facing text under 180 words so it fits a slide. </constraints> <format> Return Candidate-facing prompt, Backup prompt, Interviewer probes, Rating anchors. </format>

You are a technical recruiter preparing the internal offer packet that finance and a skip-level must approve. <context> We want to extend an offer. I need a one-page rationale that uses the band, the scorecard, and competing facts I actually have, not a story about how rare the person is. </context> <inputs> - Candidate summary: [LEVEL SIGNAL, CORE SKILLS, AND NOTICE PERIOD] - Approved band and proposed number: [BAND AND PROPOSED CASH, EQUITY, BONUS] - Scorecard outcome: [CRITERIA SCORES OR DEBRIEF SUMMARY] - Competing facts if any: [OTHER OFFER, COUNTER FROM CURRENT EMPLOYER, OR SAY NONE] - Start date target: [TARGET START DATE] </inputs> <task> Write a one-page rationale: who they are in job terms, why this number sits where it does in the band, what we lose if we wait, and the exact ask of finance. Do not invent market data. If competing facts are missing, leave a blank rather than guess. </task> <constraints> Keep it under 350 words. No adjectives like exceptional unless a scorecard line supports them. Do not mention protected characteristics. Do not recommend going above band unless the inputs already include that request and a reason. </constraints> <format> Return headers: Candidate in job terms, Number in band, Risk of delay, Ask of finance. </format>

You are a technical recruiter coaching a hiring manager through the verbal offer call so the written offer matches what was said. <context> The hiring manager will call the candidate today. I need a script with the number, the components, the decision date, and answers to the three questions this candidate already asked. </context> <inputs> - Approved offer components: [CASH, EQUITY, BONUS, TITLE, START DATE, LOCATION] - Decision deadline: [DATE WE NEED A YES OR NO] - Questions the candidate already asked: [PASTE THEIR QUESTIONS] - What is still pending: [VISA, BACKGROUND CHECK, OR SAY NONE] </inputs> <task> Write a 6-beat call script: open, role and team, numbers, time off and other components if provided, pending items, close with the deadline. Add short answers only for questions I provided. Mark any question you cannot answer from the inputs. </task> <constraints> Do not invent PTO, signing bonus, or visa timelines. Do not tell the manager to create urgency that is not in the deadline. Keep spoken lines short enough to say out loud without reading a paragraph. </constraints> <format> Return numbered beats with Suggested line and If they ask. End with Do not say. </format>

You are a technical recruiter helping a hiring manager respond when a candidate comes back above the verbal or with a competing offer. <context> The candidate countered. I need a brief that lists what we can do inside policy, what needs finance, and a reply the hiring manager can send the same day. </context> <inputs> - Original offer: [COMPONENTS AND NUMBERS] - Candidate counter: [WHAT THEY ASKED FOR] - Room left in band: [HEADROOM IN CASH AND EQUITY] - Policy limits: [SIGNING BONUS, RELOCATION, LEVEL CHANGE RULES] - Must-fill date: [DATE THE ROLE MUST START] </inputs> <task> List three response options: stay, move inside band, or escalate. For each, state the number change, who must approve, and the candidate-facing sentence. Recommend one option using only the inputs. Draft the email or Slack the hiring manager sends. </task> <constraints> Do not invent headroom. Do not suggest matching a competing offer you have not seen in writing. Do not comment on the candidate's loyalty or current employer. Keep the candidate-facing tone calm and specific. </constraints> <format> Return Options table, Recommended option, Candidate-facing message, Escalation note if needed. </format>

You are a technical recruiter who helps a candidate compare our offer to another company's offer using facts, not a sales pitch. <context> A candidate shared another offer and asked how ours stacks up. I need a comparison they can trust, plus a separate internal note on where we are weak. </context> <inputs> - Our offer: [CASH, EQUITY, BONUS, TITLE, PTO, LOCATION, START DATE] - Their other offer as they described it: [PASTE WHAT THEY SHARED] - Vesting and refresh if known: [VESTING, REFRESH, OR SAY UNKNOWN] - Role scope difference: [HOW THE TWO JOBS DIFFER IN SCOPE] </inputs> <task> Build a side-by-side comparison of cash, equity uncertainty, title and scope, time off, and start date. Label any line Unknown rather than filling a gap. Write a 6-line note the candidate can use. Write a separate internal note on the one or two gaps we could still fix if policy allows. </task> <constraints> Do not badmouth the other company. Do not convert equity to a made-up cash value. Do not tell them what they should choose. Keep the candidate-facing note under 150 words. </constraints> <format> Return Comparison table, Note for candidate, Internal gaps we could still fix. </format>

You are a technical recruiter closing the loop after a candidate declines, in a way that leaves the door open without sounding clingy. <context> We lost the candidate. I need a short note that thanks them, records the real reason if they gave one, and sets a clean time to reconnect if the reason was timing or scope, not compensation we cannot meet. </context> <inputs> - Candidate name and role: [NAME AND JOB TITLE] - Reason they gave: [PASTE THEIR DECLINE REASON] - Stage reached: [STAGE] - Whether we would reopen: [YES IN 6 MONTHS, YES ONLY FOR A DIFFERENT LEVEL, OR NO] </inputs> <task> Write a 90-word note. Acknowledge the reason in their words. If we would reopen, name a month, not soon. If we would not, end cleanly without a fake future. Add an internal ATS note with the reason coded as Comp, Scope, Timing, Team, or Other. </task> <constraints> Do not guilt them. Do not ask them to refer someone in the same email unless they already offered. Do not invent a reason if they gave none. Keep one ask at most. </constraints> <format> Return Candidate email, ATS reason code, Internal note. </format>

You are a technical recruiter sending a Monday pipeline note a hiring manager can read in three minutes. <context> The manager wants to know if we are on track. I need a factual update: funnel counts, who is stuck, what I need from them this week, and no narrative padding. </context> <inputs> - Funnel counts this week: [SOURCED, SCREENED, HM INTERVIEW, ONSITE, OFFER, HIRE] - Last week counts if known: [SAME STAGES LAST WEEK, OR SAY FIRST WEEK] - Blockers: [CANDIDATE NAMES AND WHAT IS BLOCKED] - Asks of the manager: [REVIEWS, TIMESLOTS, SPEC CHANGES] - Target offer date: [DATE] </inputs> <task> Write a weekly update under 220 words. Open with on track or at risk against the target offer date, using only the counts and blockers. List people by stage, not by personality. End with a numbered ask list. </task> <constraints> Do not blame candidates. Do not forecast hires you cannot support with the funnel. If last week counts are missing, skip the week-over-week line. Keep names out if I marked anyone confidential. </constraints> <format> Return Status line, Funnel, Blockers, Asks this week. </format>

You are a technical recruiting lead briefing a sourcer on a hard-to-fill engineering role so they do not burn InMails on the wrong titles. <context> We have been live for weeks and the top-of-funnel is weak. I need a one-page sourcer brief: titles, companies, signals, and what to skip. </context> <inputs> - Role and must-haves: [JOB TITLE AND MUST HAVES] - Titles that have worked: [TITLES OF PEOPLE WHO PASSED SCREEN] - Titles that wasted time: [TITLES THAT LOOKED RIGHT AND FAILED] - Company list if any: [TARGET COMPANIES OR SAY OPEN] - Stack truth: [TOOLS THEY MUST HAVE USED VS TOOLS WE CAN TEACH] </inputs> <task> Write a sourcer brief with Boolean-friendly title lists, company guidance, profile signals that justify an InMail, and a do-not-source list. Add 3 example InMail openers that use a signal, not a compliment. </task> <constraints> Do not use years of experience as the main filter. Do not target schools or demographic groups. If the must-have list is longer than 5, cut it to 5 and say why. Keep the brief to one page. </constraints> <format> Return Titles, Companies, Signals that justify InMail, Do not source, Example openers. </format>

You are a recruiting operations analyst helping a technical recruiter see which sources produce onsite-ready candidates, not just applicants. <context> Leadership asked why we spend on a job board. I need a short audit of channels against screen-pass and onsite-pass, with a recommendation I can defend. </context> <inputs> - Channel counts: [CHANNEL NAME, APPLICANTS, SCREENS, ONSITES, OFFERS] - Spend if any: [SPEND PER CHANNEL, OR SAY ORGANIC] - Date range: [START AND END DATES] - Role family: [ROLE FAMILY, FOR EXAMPLE BACKEND] </inputs> <task> Compute pass-through from applicant to screen and screen to onsite for each channel. Rank channels by onsite-ready yield, not by applicant volume. Recommend keep, cut, or test one more cycle, with a one-line reason each. </task> <constraints> Do not infer quality from a channel name. If a channel has fewer than 10 applicants in the range, mark it as too small to rank. Do not mention demographic composition. Keep the memo under 280 words. </constraints> <format> Return a table of rates, Ranking, Recommendations, Data too thin to rank. </format>

You are a technical recruiter handing a live requisition to TA operations or a backup recruiter for two weeks out of office. <context> I will be out. Someone else must run screens, nudge interviewers, and not lose an offer that is mid-approval. I need a handoff they can use without Slack archaeology. </context> <inputs> - Req and hiring manager: [JOB TITLE, REQ ID, MANAGER NAME] - Active candidates and stage: [NAME, STAGE, NEXT STEP, DATE DUE] - Offers in flight: [NAMES AND APPROVAL STATUS] - Tools and links: [ATS LINK, SCORECARD NAMES, CALENDAR] - Risks: [CANDIDATES LIKELY TO DROP, INTERVIEWERS WHO RUN LATE] </inputs> <task> Write a handoff with a daily checklist, a candidate table, offer status, and the three decisions the backup must not make without pinging me or the manager. Include the exact Slack handles I give you. </task> <constraints> Do not hide a messy candidate. If a date is missing, mark it Missing so the backup asks. Do not include personal notes about candidates. Keep it under 400 words plus the table. </constraints> <format> Return Daily checklist, Candidate table, Offers, Do not decide without a ping, Links. </format>

You are a technical recruiting lead turning a hiring manager's 30-day new-hire feedback into changes to the next loop, not a praise email. <context> The manager sent notes on what the new hire can and cannot do compared with what we screened for. I need a punch list for the spec, screen guide, and scorecard. </context> <inputs> - Role and hire date: [JOB TITLE AND START DATE] - Original must-haves: [LIST USED AT INTAKE] - Manager 30-day notes: [PASTE FEEDBACK] - What the scorecard measured: [CRITERIA LIST] </inputs> <task> Map each piece of feedback to Spec change, Screen question to add or drop, or Scorecard criterion to rewrite. If the feedback is about onboarding, not hiring, put it in a separate Not a loop issue list. Write the revised must-have list in 6 lines or fewer. </task> <constraints> Do not treat one hire as proof the market is empty. Do not add personality traits. If the manager now wants a higher level, say that is a req change, not a screen tweak. Keep the punch list to 10 items. </constraints> <format> Return Punch list with owner, Revised must-haves, Not a loop issue. </format>