executing-plans
executing-plans
Use when executing an implementation plan in the current session as the implementer yourself — your human partner chose inline execution, or no subagent tool is available
intake-meetingRun a recruiter-hiring manager intake meeting to kick off a search. Use when the user says "I need to kick off hiring", "run the intake call", "prepare for the intake meeting", "align with the hiring manager on this role", "we're opening a req", or wants to define hiring criteria and process before sourcing begins - even if they don't explicitly say "intake…
Independent GitHub snapshot · Automated classification · Original documentation governs
Based on Who: The A Method for Hiring (Smart & Street) and Topgrading (Bradford Smart). The intake meeting is where the search either succeeds or fails. A recruiter who starts sourcing without a clear scorecard and aligned process will either bring the wrong candidates or have the hiring manager override the criteria halfway through. The intake locks in: what we're hiring for, how we'll evaluate it, and what success looks like.
Do not walk into intake cold. Pull what you can in advance:
Prepare your intake template before the call so you're capturing live, not reconstructing from memory.
Start the meeting here. The "why now" shapes sourcing urgency and candidate bar.
Questions:
Document the answers. Urgency determines how aggressive sourcing needs to be and whether the hiring manager will prioritize interview scheduling.
This is the core of the intake. Most hiring managers come with a list of requirements ("5 years experience, worked at a large company, knows Python"). Push past the requirements to outcomes.
Questions:
Capture 3-5 performance outcomes. These become the foundation of the scorecard.
Turn outcomes into competencies. For each outcome, ask: "What capability does someone need to achieve this?"
Then calibrate the bar:
Identify the 1-2 "must-have A" competencies (the ones where a C is an automatic no-hire) vs. the "acceptable B" competencies.
Get explicit agreement on every stage before sourcing starts. Changing the process mid-search wastes time and signals disorganization to candidates.
Process agreement questions:
Agree on turnaround commitments:
These aren't just courtesy - slow loops lose A players.
Address comp in intake, not when you're about to make an offer.
Questions:
Get explicit answers. Discovering a comp mismatch at the offer stage is a sourcing failure that could have been prevented here.
Within 24 hours of the intake meeting, send a summary doc to [hiring manager] for alignment:
# Intake Summary: [Role Title]
Date: [Date]
Recruiter: [Your name]
Hiring Manager: [Name]
## Why This Role / Urgency
[1-2 sentences on business context and timeline]
## Performance Outcomes
1. [Outcome 1 - 90 days]
2. [Outcome 2 - 6 months]
3. [Outcome 3 - 12 months]
## Competencies and Bar
| Competency | Minimum Bar | Notes |
|------------|-------------|-------|
| [Comp 1] | A required | [Context] |
| [Comp 2] | B acceptable | [Context] |
## Interview Process
Stage 1: Recruiter screen (30 min) - covers [competencies]
Stage 2: Hiring manager interview (60 min) - covers [competencies]
Stage 3: Loop - [Interviewer 1], [Interviewer 2], [Interviewer 3]
Stage 4: Debrief and decision
## Timeline Commitments
Shortlist to HM: [date]
HM responds to shortlist: within 48 hours
Candidate loop completed: within [X] weeks
Offer target: [date]
## Compensation
Band: $[X] - $[Y] base
Equity: [range]
Flexibility: [yes/no and conditions]
## Open Questions
- [Any unresolved items from the meeting]
If [hiring manager] doesn't reply to confirm alignment within 48 hours, follow up. Starting a search without explicit confirmation is a risk.
1. Skipping intake and sourcing from the JD alone Bad: JD posted, start sending LinkedIn InMails. Good: Intake happens before sourcing. The JD is an input, not the brief. The intake uncovers what the JD doesn't capture.
2. Letting the hiring manager drive entirely Bad: "Whatever [hiring manager] wants, that's what we source for." Good: The recruiter's job is to push back on vague requirements and translate them into observable, evaluable outcomes. "5 years experience" is not evaluable. "Built and shipped a feature end-to-end" is.
3. Not addressing comp until the offer Bad: Wait until you have a finalist to ask about budget. Good: Comp is confirmed in intake. If the band can't attract market candidates, escalate before wasting sourcing effort.
4. No process agreement Bad: "We'll figure out the interview process as we go." Good: Every stage is defined, every interviewer is assigned, and turnaround commitments are explicit before the first candidate is screened.
5. Soft intake (30-minute chat with no document) Bad: Quick conversation, no follow-up, everyone remembers it differently. Good: Intake doc sent within 24 hours, confirmed by [hiring manager]. This is the contract for the search.