@forwardimpact/outpost 3.0.3

package/templates/.claude/skills/req-assess/references/interview-template.md

@@ -0,0 +1,62 @@
+# Interview Assessment Template
+
+Reference template for `req-assess` Step 6. Save to
+`knowledge/Candidates/{Name}/interview-{date}.md`. Include only skills the
+interview produced new evidence for — don't repeat the full matrix.
+
+```markdown
+# Interview Assessment — {Full Name}
+
+**Interview type:** {Screening / Decomposition / Panel / Technical}
+**Date:** {YYYY-MM-DD}
+**Interviewers:** {Names}
+**Assessed against:** {Discipline} {Level} — {Track}
+
+## Interview Summary
+
+{3–5 sentences: format, what happened, overall impression. Include the
+key decision or outcome.}
+
+## Skill Evidence
+
+| Skill | Screening Rating | Interview Rating | Change | Evidence |
+| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
+| {skill} | {from screening.md} | {updated} | {↑ / ↓ / —} | {transcript evidence} |
+
+### Confirmed Strengths
+- {Strength confirmed by interview — cite specific moment}
+
+### New Concerns
+- {Concern revealed by interview — cite specific moment}
+
+### Resolved Uncertainties
+- {Gap or question from screening that the interview answered}
+
+## Behaviour Evidence
+
+| Behaviour | Screening Signal | Interview Observation | Updated Maturity |
+| --- | --- | --- | --- |
+| {behaviour} | {from screening.md} | {observation} | {maturity} |
+
+## Level Assessment
+
+**Screening estimate:** {level from screening.md}
+**Interview evidence suggests:** {confirmed / adjusted level}
+
+{Paragraph explaining the level decision, referencing specific
+transcript moments and standard progression criteria.}
+
+## Interviewer Observations
+
+- **{Interviewer}:** "{observation or quote}"
+- **{Interviewer}:** "{observation or quote}"
+
+## Updated Screening Recommendation
+
+**Previous:** {Interview / Interview with focus areas / Pass}
+**Updated:** {Continue interviewing / Adjust level to {X} / Pass}
+
+**Remaining uncertainties for the next stage:**
+- {What still needs to be validated}
+- {What the next interview should focus on}
+```

package/templates/.claude/skills/req-assess/references/panel-template.md

@@ -0,0 +1,117 @@
+# Panel Brief Template
+
+Reference template for `req-assess` Step 7. Save to
+`knowledge/Candidates/{Name}/panel.md`. Audience: **next-stage interviewers,
+often non-engineers** — explain without jargon, focus on behaviours and scope.
+
+```markdown
+# Panel Brief — {Full Name}
+## {Role Title} — {Level}
+
+**Panel date:** {date or TBC}
+**Prepared:** {YYYY-MM-DD}
+**Prepared for:** {Panel interviewers / business colleagues / etc.}
+**Role under evaluation:** {Full role title with level}
+
+{If the level was adjusted from the original target, include a level
+note explaining the change and why it matters.}
+
+---
+
+## Candidate Snapshot
+
+| Field | Detail |
+|---|---|
+| **Current role** | {title — employer} |
+| **Years of experience** | {N}+ years |
+| **Background** | {2–3 key themes} |
+| **Location** | {location} |
+| **Source** | {how they entered the pipeline} |
+
+**What makes this candidate interesting:** {2–3 sentences. Lead with
+the most compelling signal.}
+
+---
+
+## Where We Are in the Process
+
+| Stage | Date | Outcome |
+|---|---|---|
+| CV review | {date} | {outcome} |
+| {Interview type} ({interviewer}) | {date} | {outcome} |
+| **{Next stage}** | **{date}** | **← You are here** |
+
+---
+
+## What Previous Interviews Told Us
+
+**What went well:**
+- {strength 1}
+- {strength 2}
+
+**What fell short:**
+- {concern 1}
+- {concern 2}
+
+**Interviewer conclusion:** {key takeaway in one sentence}
+
+---
+
+## What {Level} {Track} Looks Like
+
+Describe role expectations in non-technical language. Focus on
+behaviours and scope, not technical skills.
+
+**Key behaviours at this level:**
+- **{Behaviour}** — {plain-language description}
+
+**Skills most relevant for the panel to probe:**
+- **{Skill}** — {why this matters for the business}
+
+---
+
+## What the Panel Should Explore
+
+Frame remaining uncertainties as questions the panel can answer through
+conversation. Focus on business-facing capabilities.
+
+### Suggested Focus Areas
+
+**1. {Focus area title}**
+{Context — explain the gap or uncertainty.}
+
+> *"{Suggested question 1}"*
+> *"{Suggested question 2}"*
+
+**2. {Focus area title}**
+{Context.}
+
+> *"{Suggested question 1}"*
+> *"{Suggested question 2}"*
+
+---
+
+## Known Strengths — Lean Into These
+
+- **{Strength}:** {evidence summary}
+
+---
+
+## Known Risks — Probe, Don't Assume
+
+- **{Risk}:** {evidence summary and what to look for}
+
+---
+
+## Screening Recommendation (Pre-Panel)
+
+**{Recommendation}**
+
+{2–3 sentence summary of the case for this candidate at this level.
+State what the panel should look for to confirm or disconfirm.}
+
+---
+
+*This brief is a hiring aid for the panel. The final decision rests
+with the panel and the hiring manager. All assessments are advisory.*
+```

package/templates/.claude/skills/req-assess/references/rubric.md

@@ -0,0 +1,65 @@
+# Interview Assessment Rubric
+
+Reference data for `req-assess` Steps 1, 3, 4, and 5.
+
+## What to extract from the transcript
+
+| Field                         | What to look for                                          |
+| ----------------------------- | --------------------------------------------------------- |
+| **Interview type**            | Screening, decomposition, panel, technical, etc.          |
+| **Interviewers**              | Who conducted the interview                               |
+| **Date**                      | When the interview took place                             |
+| **Skill demonstrations**      | Concrete examples of skills applied in real time          |
+| **Behaviour observations**    | How the candidate acted under pressure, with others       |
+| **Self-identified strengths** | What the candidate claims they're good at                 |
+| **Self-identified gaps**      | What the candidate acknowledges as growth areas           |
+| **Red flags**                 | Contradictions with CV, concerning patterns               |
+| **Interviewer feedback**      | Direct quotes or observations from interviewers           |
+| **Level signals**             | Autonomy, scope, complexity demonstrated in responses     |
+| **Track signals**             | Business immersion vs. platform thinking in their answers |
+
+## Skill re-rating
+
+**Interview evidence outranks CV evidence.** A candidate who claimed
+`practitioner` but demonstrated `foundational` should be re-rated. The reverse
+also applies. Every re-rating cites a specific moment, quote, or observation
+from the transcript — "seemed strong" is not evidence.
+
+| Interview evidence                          | Rating adjustment                     |
+| ------------------------------------------- | ------------------------------------- |
+| Demonstrated the skill live, under pressure | **Upgrade** — interview > CV claims   |
+| Discussed concrete examples with detail     | **Confirm** at screening level or +1  |
+| Vague or generic answers about this area    | **Hold** at screening level           |
+| Struggled or revealed misunderstanding      | **Downgrade** from screening level    |
+| Self-identified this as a gap               | **Downgrade** and note honesty signal |
+| Interviewer explicitly flagged a concern    | **Downgrade** with interviewer quote  |
+
+## Behaviour signals
+
+| Behaviour                  | Interview evidence                                             |
+| -------------------------- | -------------------------------------------------------------- |
+| Own the Outcome            | Takes responsibility, doesn't deflect, drives to resolution    |
+| Think in Systems           | Considers second-order effects, trade-offs, system boundaries  |
+| Communicate with Precision | Clear explanations, appropriate detail, listens actively       |
+| Be Polymath Oriented       | Draws on diverse knowledge, makes unexpected connections       |
+| Don't Lose Your Curiosity  | Asks good questions, explores alternatives, admits not knowing |
+
+## Behaviour maturity scale
+
+| Maturity        | Interview signal                                             |
+| --------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------ |
+| `emerging`      | Behaviour not observed or only when prompted                 |
+| `developing`    | Behaviour present but inconsistent or surface-level          |
+| `practicing`    | Behaviour consistent and natural throughout the interview    |
+| `role_modeling` | Behaviour demonstrated at high level, influenced the room    |
+| `exemplifying`  | Behaviour exceptional, set the standard for the conversation |
+
+## Level signals
+
+| Interview signal                                          | Implication                    |
+| --------------------------------------------------------- | ------------------------------ |
+| Needed guidance to structure their approach               | Level may be lower than est.   |
+| Self-directed; sound trade-offs independently             | Level estimate confirmed       |
+| Mentored or coached others during the exercise            | Level may be higher than est.  |
+| Struggled with complexity appropriate to the target level | Downgrade                      |
+| Interviewer explicitly suggested a different level        | Strong signal — weight heavily |

package/templates/.claude/skills/req-decide/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,163 @@
+---
+name: req-decide
+description: >
+  Synthesize all evidence (CV screening, interview assessments, transcripts)
+  into a final hiring recommendation. Produces a comprehensive recommendation
+  document with full evidence trail, level/track/discipline confirmation, and
+  a clear hire/no-hire decision. Use when all interview stages are complete.
+---
+
+# Hiring Decision
+
+Synthesize all available evidence for a candidate into a final hiring
+recommendation. This is the culmination of the hiring pipeline — every prior
+assessment feeds in.
+
+This is **Stage 3** of the three-stage pipeline:
+
+1. `req-screen` — CV → interview or pass.
+2. `req-assess` — transcript → updated evidence.
+3. **Hire / no hire** (this skill) — all stages complete → recommendation.
+
+## Trigger
+
+- The user asks for a final hiring recommendation.
+- All planned interview stages for a candidate are complete.
+- The user asks "should we hire {Name}?".
+- The user needs to compare finalists for a position.
+
+## Prerequisites
+
+- `fit-pathway` CLI installed.
+- `knowledge/Candidates/{Name}/screening.md` exists.
+- At least one `knowledge/Candidates/{Name}/interview-*.md`.
+- `knowledge/Candidates/{Name}/brief.md` exists.
+
+## Inputs
+
+- All artifacts in `knowledge/Candidates/{Name}/`.
+- Standard data via `fit-pathway`.
+- `knowledge/Candidates/Insights.md` — cross-candidate context.
+- `knowledge/Roles/*.md` — the candidate's requisition (positions, hiring
+  manager, domain lead).
+- `knowledge/Goals/*.md`, `knowledge/Priorities/*.md` — strategic context.
+- Other active candidates at the same level — relative positioning.
+
+## Outputs
+
+- `knowledge/Candidates/{Name}/recommendation.md` — final recommendation.
+- Updated `knowledge/Candidates/{Name}/brief.md` — status and link.
+- Updated `knowledge/Candidates/Insights.md` — cross-candidate observations.
+
+<do_confirm_checklist goal="Verify the recommendation is grounded and
+audit-ready">
+
+- [ ] Every skill rating traces to a specific evidence source (stage + detail).
+- [ ] Evidence hierarchy respected — interview evidence outranks CV.
+- [ ] Level recommendation grounded in standard progression criteria.
+- [ ] Track recommendation cites interview evidence, not just CV.
+- [ ] Decision rules applied strictly; match % and gap counts verified.
+- [ ] Risk assessment is honest — concerns not minimised to justify a hire.
+- [ ] "Do not hire" written with the same rigour as "Hire" (GDPR Article 15:
+      candidate may request access).
+- [ ] Brief updated with `[Hiring Recommendation](./recommendation.md)` and a
+      final pipeline entry.
+- [ ] Recommendation could be shown to the candidate without embarrassment.
+
+</do_confirm_checklist>
+
+## Procedure
+
+### 1. Gather all evidence
+
+```bash
+ls knowledge/Candidates/{Name}/
+```
+
+Read in order: `brief.md`, `screening.md`, every `interview-*.md`, relevant
+`transcript-*.md`, and `panel.md` if present. Build the chronological evidence
+timeline (date / stage / source / key finding).
+
+### 2. Build the final skill profile
+
+```bash
+bunx fit-pathway job {discipline} {level} --track={track} --skills
+bunx fit-pathway progress {discipline} {level} --track={track}
+```
+
+For each skill in the target job, pick the highest-fidelity evidence using the
+[evidence hierarchy](references/rubric.md#evidence-hierarchy). Record final
+rating, best evidence source, trajectory, confidence.
+
+### 3. Build the final behaviour profile
+
+```bash
+bunx fit-pathway behaviour --list
+```
+
+Apply the same hierarchy ([reference](references/rubric.md#behaviour-evidence)).
+Record final maturity, best evidence, consistency.
+
+### 4. Confirm level and track
+
+```bash
+bunx fit-pathway job {discipline} {lower_level} --track={track}
+bunx fit-pathway job {discipline} {target_level} --track={track}
+bunx fit-pathway progress {discipline} {lower_level} --track={track}
+```
+
+Apply the level-confirmation criteria in
+[references/rubric.md](references/rubric.md#level-confirmation-criteria).
+
+### 5. Read role context
+
+If `brief.md` carries a `Req`:
+
+```bash
+ls knowledge/Roles/ | grep "{req_number}"
+cat "knowledge/Roles/{matching file}"
+```
+
+Capture remaining positions, hiring manager, domain lead, goal alignment, other
+candidates on the same req, and channel (hr / vendor). Frame the recommendation
+in terms of strategic impact.
+
+### 6. Assess against the active pipeline
+
+```bash
+cat knowledge/Candidates/Insights.md
+
+for dir in knowledge/Candidates/*/; do
+  if [ -f "$dir/screening.md" ]; then
+    head -5 "$dir/screening.md"
+  fi
+done
+```
+
+Apply the pipeline-context guidance in
+[references/rubric.md](references/rubric.md#pipeline-context-step-5).
+
+### 7. Pick the recommendation
+
+Apply the [decision rules](references/rubric.md#decision-rules) and run the
+[hire criteria check](references/rubric.md#hire-criteria-check).
+
+### 8. Write the recommendation
+
+Save to `knowledge/Candidates/{Name}/recommendation.md` using the template in
+[references/template.md](references/template.md). Carry the **advisory-only**
+banner. Cite specific evidence in skill, behaviour, level, and track sections.
+
+### 9. Update brief and insights
+
+Update `brief.md`:
+
+- Set `Status` to `recommended` or `not-recommended`.
+- Append `- [Hiring Recommendation](./recommendation.md)`.
+- Add the final pipeline entry with date and outcome.
+
+Update `knowledge/Candidates/Insights.md` only when there's a cross-candidate
+observation worth keeping (strongest at level, sourcing channel pattern,
+level-adjustment implications).
+
+Use targeted Edit operations — never rewrite entire files.

package/templates/.claude/skills/req-decide/references/rubric.md

@@ -0,0 +1,63 @@
+# Decision Rubric
+
+Reference data for `req-decide` Steps 2–5.
+
+## Evidence hierarchy
+
+Highest to lowest fidelity. For each skill, pick the **highest tier** that
+applies and use it as the source of the final rating.
+
+1. **Live demonstration** — the candidate showed the skill in an interview
+   exercise.
+2. **Detailed interview discussion** — the candidate gave specific, probing
+   answers.
+3. **Interviewer observation** — an interviewer noted strength or concern.
+4. **CV evidence with quantification** — concrete metrics, named projects.
+5. **CV evidence without quantification** — described but vague.
+6. **Not evidenced** — never surfaced across any stage.
+
+For each skill record: **final rating**, **best evidence source**,
+**trajectory** (↑ / ↓ / —), **confidence** (High = demonstrated live; Medium =
+discussed well; Low = CV only or thin).
+
+## Behaviour evidence
+
+Same hierarchy. Behaviours assessed in interviews carry far more weight than CV
+signals. For each: **final maturity**, **best evidence** (specific moment or
+pattern), **consistency** (once vs. throughout).
+
+## Level confirmation criteria
+
+| Question                                                   | Answer informs            |
+| ---------------------------------------------------------- | ------------------------- |
+| Does the candidate meet ≥ 70 % of skills at the target?    | Level confirmation        |
+| Were level concerns from screening resolved in interviews? | Level upgrade / downgrade |
+| Did interviewers explicitly suggest a different level?     | Strong level signal       |
+| Does the candidate's scope and autonomy match the level?   | Level fit                 |
+| Which track energized the candidate in interviews?         | Track confirmation        |
+
+## Decision rules
+
+| Recommendation             | Criteria                                                                                  |
+| -------------------------- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
+| **Hire**                   | ≥ 70 % Strong match at the final level, no unresolved core-skill gaps, strong behaviours  |
+| **Hire at adjusted level** | Strong candidate; evidence supports a different level than originally targeted            |
+| **Do not hire**            | Unresolved core-skill gaps, behaviour concerns, or insufficient evidence after interviews |
+
+### Hire criteria check
+
+- ≥ 70 % of skills rated Strong match at the recommended level.
+- No core skill gaps remain unresolved (core = top-tier skills for the
+  discipline/track combo).
+- All agent-aligned standard behaviours at or above expected maturity.
+- Level confirmed by interview evidence (not just CV).
+- Track fit confirmed by interview evidence.
+- No red flags from any interview stage.
+
+## Pipeline context (Step 5)
+
+This is **not** a ranking exercise — it provides context. Note:
+
+- Whether this candidate fills a gap in the current pipeline.
+- Whether stronger candidates exist for the same role.
+- Whether this candidate is better suited to a different open position.

package/templates/.claude/skills/req-decide/references/template.md

@@ -0,0 +1,118 @@
+# Recommendation Template
+
+Reference template for `req-decide` Step 6. Save to
+`knowledge/Candidates/{Name}/recommendation.md`.
+
+```markdown
+# Hiring Recommendation — {Full Name}
+
+**Role:** {Discipline} {Level} — {Track}
+**Req:** {Req number and title, or "—"}
+**Hiring manager:** {Name from Role file, or "—"}
+**Domain lead:** {Name from Role file, or "—"}
+**Channel:** {hr / vendor}
+**Date:** {YYYY-MM-DD}
+**Prepared by:** Recruiter agent (agent-aligned engineering standard)
+
+**⚠️ Advisory only — human decision required.**
+
+---
+
+## Recommendation
+
+**{Hire / Hire at {adjusted level} / Do not hire}**
+
+{3–5 sentence executive summary. Lead with the decision and the single
+strongest reason. Then address the primary risk and whether interviews
+resolved it. End with confidence.}
+
+---
+
+## Evidence Summary
+
+### Process Timeline
+
+| Date | Stage | Interviewer(s) | Outcome |
+|------|-------|----------------|---------|
+| {date} | CV Screening | — | {outcome} |
+| {date} | {Interview type} | {names} | {outcome} |
+
+### Final Skill Profile
+
+Standard reference: `{discipline} {level} --track={track}`
+
+| Skill | Expected | Final | Confidence | Best Evidence | Trajectory |
+| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
+| {skill} | {level} | {level} | {High/Med/Low} | {stage} | {↑ / ↓ / —} |
+
+**Skill match:** {N} % Strong, {N} % Adequate, {N} % Gap.
+
+### Final Behaviour Profile
+
+| Behaviour | Expected | Final | Best Evidence |
+| --- | --- | --- | --- |
+| {behaviour} | {maturity} | {maturity} | {observation} |
+
+### Level Confirmation
+
+**Target level:** {original target}
+**Recommended level:** {confirmed or adjusted}
+
+{Explain the level decision, referencing standard progression criteria
+and specific interview evidence. If the level changed, recap the
+journey.}
+
+### Track Confirmation
+
+**Recommended track:** {forward_deployed / platform / either}
+
+{Explain track fit, referencing interview moments.}
+
+---
+
+## Risk Assessment
+
+**Primary risk:** {single biggest concern and whether it was resolved}
+**Mitigation:** {how to manage it if hiring proceeds}
+
+**Secondary risks:**
+- {Risk — severity and mitigation}
+
+---
+
+## Strengths to Leverage
+
+Frame in terms of business impact, not just technical capability.
+
+1. **{Strength}:** {evidence and expected impact}
+2. **{Strength}:** {evidence and expected impact}
+
+## Development Areas
+
+Frame as investment, not weakness.
+
+1. **{Area}:** {current → target level, development path}
+2. **{Area}:** {current → target level, development path}
+
+---
+
+## Role Context
+
+- **Requisition:** {Req number — title}
+- **Remaining positions:** {N of M filled}
+- **Hiring manager:** {name} | **Domain lead:** {name}
+- **Channel:** {hr / vendor — and implications for engagement model}
+
+## Pipeline Context
+
+- **Pipeline position:** {relative to others on this req}
+- **Unique value:** {what this candidate offers others don't}
+- **Alternative fit:** {if not hired here, could they fit another open
+  role? Reference Role files.}
+
+---
+
+*This recommendation synthesizes all available evidence from {N}
+stages conducted between {first date} and {last date}. The final
+decision rests with the hiring manager. All assessments are advisory.*
+```