Design an interview rubric so my team can hire on signal, not vibes. The goal: when two interviewers disagree, the rubric tells us why.
ROLE: {title + level}
WHAT THE PERSON MUST BE ABLE TO DO well to succeed: {3-5_outcomes_not_traits}
INTERVIEW LOOP STAGES: {list — e.g. recruiter / hiring_manager / technical / case / panel}
WHO RUNS EACH STAGE: {role of interviewer}
DURATION of each stage: {minutes}
LEVELS OF SENIORITY at risk of confusion (the close calls): {between_what_and_what}
DELIVER:
1. **The 4-5 dimensions** we're really evaluating (e.g. systems thinking, communication, scope ownership, persuasion, depth). Use language specific to this role, not generic.
2. **Behavioral anchors** for each dimension on a 1-4 scale:
- 1 = below bar (specific example of what that looks like)
- 2 = approaching bar
- 3 = at level (the hire)
- 4 = above level (rare)
3. **Which interview stage evaluates which dimension** — no dimension evaluated < 2x in the loop.
4. **A bias-checker question** for each dimension — what's a false positive that looks like a 3 but isn't?
5. **Scorecard template** — what each interviewer fills out within 30 min of the interview.
6. **The 'hire / no-hire' rule** — how to aggregate scores into a decision.
7. **A debrief agenda** — 30 min, runs after the loop.
No 'culture fit'. No 'team player'. Everything must be observable + describable in 2 sentences.0 copies·0 saves·1 views
232 words·1,403 chars
Sample output
Role: Senior Product Manager, B2B SaaS. Must-be-able-to: define a product strategy from messy data; influence engineering + design without authority; communicate complex tradeoffs to executives; ship something in their first quarter; manage stakeholders across multiple time zones. Loop: recruiter (30) / hiring manager (60) / case study writeup (offline 4h) + 1h debrief / panel of 3 × 45m. Confusion risk: Senior vs Staff is the close call.
1. The 4 dimensions for this role:
(No 'culture fit'. No 'collaborative.' These four are the lever, every signal in the interview should map to one of them.)
2. Behavioral anchors:
Strategic Clarity:
Parameters
Text generation parameters
FAQ
Send the scorecard to every interviewer BEFORE the loop, not after. Interviewers who know the dimensions in advance ask better questions. Interviewers who see the rubric for the first time when filling it out reverse-engineer scores. The prompt targets Claude Sonnet and lives in the Personal & Career category on mycopyprompt.
This prompt is written for Claude Sonnet. It's a text/chat prompt — paste it into Claude Sonnet (or compatible LLMs like Claude or GPT-4) to get the expected output.
1. Click the Copy button on this page to copy the full prompt. 2. Open Claude Sonnet. 3. Paste the prompt into a new conversation. 4. Replace any {placeholders} with your specifics, then send. Most prompts produce the right output on the first try; complex ones may need 1-2 iterations.
Yes — every prompt on mycopyprompt is free forever. No paywall, no signup wall for browsing or copying. You can use it for personal or commercial work, just don't redistribute the entire mycopyprompt library.
Absolutely — most prompts are templates. Look for {placeholders} (curly braces) and swap them with your own values. You can also reword sections, add constraints, or chain it with other prompts.
See the "Sample output" panel above — that's a real example of what Claude Sonnet returns when this prompt runs. Your output will vary in wording but should follow the same structure and depth.
Similar prompts
Matched against every prompt in the catalog by title.
Cross-functional Influence:
Executive Communication:
Operational Rigor:
3. Which stage evaluates which dimension:
| Dimension | Recruiter | HM (60m) | Case (4h+1h) | Panel × 3 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Strategic Clarity | – | × | × | × |
| Cross-functional Influence | – | × | – | × |
| Executive Communication | × | × | × | × |
| Operational Rigor | – | – | × | × |
Every dimension is observed in at least 2 stages so a single bad day isn't fatal.
4. Bias-checker questions:
Strategic Clarity — false positive: candidate sounds confident but the 'opinionated bet' is a textbook framework. Test: 'why this instead of [obvious alternative]?' If they don't have a real answer, it's polished, not clear.
Cross-functional Influence — false positive: candidate tells 'great team' stories. Test: 'what's the moment a teammate disagreed with you, and what did you actually do?' If they don't have a moment of friction, the stories aren't about influence.
Executive Communication — false positive: candidate is verbally fluent but the written case is bloated. Test: read the case study writeup BEFORE the live interview. Live charisma masks written sloppiness.
Operational Rigor — false positive: candidate names big metrics ('we shipped a project that grew DAU 30%'). Test: ask about a project that DIDN'T ship. Operational rigor shows in failure handling, not in wins.
5. Scorecard template (filled within 30 min of interview):
Candidate: [name]
Stage: [HM / panel / etc.]
Interviewer: [name]
Duration: [minutes]
For each dimension you covered:
- Score (1-4): __
- One specific moment from the interview that supports this score:
"At minute X, when asked Y, they said Z, which showed..."
- Bias check — would this score be different if the candidate looked like me / went to my school / used my jargon?
Overall recommendation:
- Strong hire / Hire / Lean hire / Lean no-hire / No-hire
- One-sentence summary.
What I'd want the next interviewer to specifically probe:
[ ]
6. Hire / no-hire decision rule:
Hire if: every dimension scored ≥ 3 in at least one stage, AND no dimension scored ≤ 2 in more than one stage.
No-hire if: any dimension scored 1 in any stage, OR ≤ 2 in two+ stages.
Lean / debate cases: if dimensions are mixed, the debrief decides — not the average score. (Don't let a 3.0 average hide a 1 on Operational Rigor.)
7. Debrief agenda (30 min, run by hiring manager):
No 'I just got a good vibe.' If 'vibe' is the strongest evidence, the loop didn't generate enough signal.