La interfaz está localizada; las descripciones y documentos de las Skills se traducen automáticamente con IA a su idioma. El código, los comandos, rutas y términos técnicos se mantienen en el original, y prevalece el documento del autor.
Explorar Skills
Diseño y creatividad · SKILL.md

reference-check-script

reference-check-script

Run a rigorous candidate reference check that surfaces real signal. Use when asked to prepare or conduct reference calls for a job candidate, design reference questions, or build a reference-check rubric. Produces a structured question set, probing follow-ups, a red/yellow/green scoring rubric, and the legal guardrails — designed to get past 'they were grea…

Independent GitHub snapshot · Automated classification · Original documentation governs

Documentación de la Skill

GitHub

name: reference-check-script description: "Run a rigorous candidate reference check that surfaces real signal. Use when asked to prepare or conduct reference calls for a job candidate, design reference questions, or build a reference-check rubric. Produces a structured question set, probing follow-ups, a red/yellow/green scoring rubric, and the legal guardrails — designed to get past 'they were great' without leading the referee."

Reference Check Script Skill

A reference check fails when it's a formality — you call, they say "great to work with," you tick the box. This skill writes a call that actually de-risks the hire: questions that make it safe and easy for a referee to be honest, follow-ups that open the gap between polite and true, and a rubric that turns what you hear into a defensible signal.

Working from a brief

Given the role and what you need to validate, write the full script — tailor the questions to the specific concerns (the shaky interview signal, the seniority stretch, the manager-vs-IC question). Default to a ~20–25 minute call structure.

Required Inputs

Ask for (if not provided, else infer and label the assumption):

  • Role and level, and the 1–3 things to validate or de-risk (the open questions from interviews)
  • Referee relationship to the candidate (former manager / peer / report / client)
  • Reference type — candidate-provided or back-channel (changes how candid you probe)

Output Format

Framing (how to open)

A 2–3 sentence opener that sets candor: confidential, no scripted "sales pitch" needed, you're calibrating not gatekeeping. The single most important move — referees mirror the tone you set.

Question set (in order)

Grouped, with the intent of each noted:

  1. Relationship & context — how they worked together, for how long, on what.
  2. Scope & performance — what the candidate actually owned; where they ranked among peers.
  3. Strengths — with a concrete example ("tell me about a time…").
  4. Growth areas — asked as "where did they most need to grow / what coaching helped?" (not "weaknesses").
  5. Working style — how they handle conflict, feedback, ambiguity, pressure.
  6. The rehire question — "Would you hire them again? For what kind of role?" — and listen to the hesitation.

Probing follow-ups

The second question that opens the gap: "Can you give me an example?" · "How did that compare to others at that level?" · "What would their harshest fair critic say?" · silence (let them fill it).

Scoring rubric

Signal🟢 Green🟡 Yellow🔴 Red
Specificityconcrete examplesgeneric praiseevasive / can't recall
Rehireenthusiastic, unpromptedqualifiedhesitation or no
Growth honestycandid, coachablevaguedefensive / dodged

Plus a one-line overall read and any follow-up to run (e.g. a back-channel if listed refs are all glowing-but-generic).

Legal & fairness guardrails

Ask about job performance only. Do not ask about age, health/disability, family/pregnancy, religion, national origin, or other protected characteristics. Keep it consistent across candidates so it's comparable and defensible.

Quality Checks

  • The opener explicitly invites candor (not a box-tick)
  • Questions are open and non-leading — no "they were a great team player, right?"
  • At least one question forces a concrete example and one comparative ranking
  • The rehire question is included and its hesitation is scored, not just its answer
  • The rubric converts what's heard into 🟢🟡🔴 with an overall read
  • Protected-class questions are explicitly excluded; the script is consistent across candidates

Anti-Patterns

  • Leading questions that hand the referee the answer
  • Accepting "they were great" without a follow-up for a specific example
  • Only calling candidate-selected references (all curated to be positive)
  • Treating the call as confirmation, not investigation
  • Asking anything about protected characteristics
  • No rubric — a vibe instead of a comparable, documented signal

Example Trigger Phrases

  • "Prepare reference calls for this candidate."
  • "Design reference questions."
  • "Build a reference-check rubric."
  • "What should I ask this candidate's references?"
Skills guardadas