rsc-universal 0.1.1

package/skills/hiring/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,248 @@
+---
+name: hiring
+description: "Use when there's an open role and you need to write the job post, screen inbound candidates, structure the interview loop, or build a scorecard to reach a fair hire decision; symptoms: gut-feel ratings, every interviewer asking the same question, a bloated requirements list, no consistent screen. Triggers: 'write a job description', 'screen these CVs', 'build an interview scorecard', 'structure the interview panel', 'redacta la oferta de empleo', 'necesito una scorecard', plus the non-obvious 'four people interviewed and we still can't decide' and 'is our AI résumé filter legal'. NOT managing the person after they're hired — onboarding, payroll, performance (that is people-ops)."
+tags: [hiring, recruiting, job-description, interview-scorecard, candidate-screening, structured-interview]
+recommends: [people-ops, brand-voice, contracts, compliance, cold-outreach, calendar-scheduling]
+profiles: []
+origin: risco
+---
+
+# Hiring
+
+You run the **selection funnel up to the hire decision**: write the post, screen
+the pile, structure the loop, and score candidates so the call is evidence-based
+and defensible. The product of this skill is a job post, a set of screen
+decisions, an interview structure, and a scorecard that says Hire / On-Hold /
+No-Hire with the reason written down.
+
+Hard boundary: the moment the offer is accepted, you are done. Onboarding,
+payroll, equipment, performance reviews, PTO — that is `../people-ops/SKILL.md`.
+Hiring gets the right person in the door; people-ops takes it from day one. Do
+not draft offer-letter terms here either; that is `../contracts/SKILL.md`.
+
+## The funnel (the spine)
+
+Every engagement walks this line, in order. Do not skip to scoring before the
+rubric exists.
+
+```text
+define role → write post → screen pile → structured loop → independent scores → calibrated debrief → decision
+```
+
+One rule per stage, with the why:
+
+- **Define the role first.** You cannot screen against criteria you have not
+  named. Write the 3–6 competencies before the post, because they drive the
+  post, the questions, and the scorecard.
+- **Write the post from the competencies.** A post is the competencies turned
+  outward, not a wish list. See "Write the job post".
+- **Screen against one rubric.** Same criteria, same order, every candidate, or
+  the comparison is meaningless.
+- **Run a structured loop.** Same questions, same rubric, every candidate —
+  structured interviews are the single highest-validity selection method
+  (~.51 predictive validity vs ~.38 unstructured; the 2022 Sackett et al.
+  re-analysis ranks them above cognitive-ability tests). Unstructured = lottery.
+- **Score independently, then calibrate.** Each interviewer submits before the
+  group talks. Debrief is calibration, not a re-vote.
+
+### Screen decision table
+
+For each candidate at the screen stage:
+
+| Signal | Decision |
+|---|---|
+| Meets the must-haves on job-related evidence | Advance to loop |
+| Strong on most, one must-have unclear | Send a short work-sample / structured task to resolve it |
+| Misses a hard must-have (verified skill, legal eligibility) | Reject, with the job-related reason logged |
+| Borderline, more reqs open soon | Parking lot — note why, revisit, do not silently ghost |
+| Non-job factor (school name, age, gap, "vibe", name) | Ignore it — it is not in the rubric |
+
+## Write the job post
+
+The job post is the top of the funnel and it leaks candidates if you write it
+wrong. Apply the company voice from `../brand-voice/SKILL.md` if one exists — but
+do not author the voice guide here, just apply it.
+
+**Split must-haves from nice-to-haves, and keep must-haves short.** Women tend to
+apply only when they meet ~100% of listed requirements vs ~60% for men, so every
+extra "requirement" silently filters out qualified candidates. Cap must-haves at
+~6. Everything that is genuinely learnable on the job goes under nice-to-have.
+
+**Ban gender-coded language.** Removing gender-coded terms yields roughly 29%
+more applications. Masculine-coded words skew the applicant pool male. Strip and
+replace:
+
+- Drop: *rockstar, ninja, dominant, aggressive, fearless, ambitious, competitive,
+  driven, strong, crush it.*
+- Prefer: *collaborate, support, partner, build, responsible, dependable, share.*
+
+Full do/don't word list and a fill-in post skeleton: `references/templates.md`.
+
+**State pay.** Pay transparency is law in a growing number of jurisdictions and a
+range widens the pool. Put a band in the post.
+
+Bad → Good, same role:
+
+```text
+BAD
+We need a rockstar engineer — a fearless, aggressive self-starter who can crush
+ambiguous problems. Requirements: 8+ years, CS degree from a top school, expert
+in 11 named technologies, startup experience, must thrive under pressure.
+
+GOOD
+Senior Backend Engineer · €70–90k · Barcelona / remote-EU
+You'll own our payments service end to end and partner with product on the
+roadmap.
+Must-haves (≤6): 5+ yrs building production backend services; fluent in one of
+Go/Python/Java; designed and run a service in production; comfortable with SQL.
+Nice-to-haves: payments domain, Kafka, prior on-call.
+How to apply: send a short note + anything you've shipped.
+```
+
+## Screen the pile
+
+Score every applicant against the **same job-related rubric** you derived from
+the competencies. No bespoke criteria per candidate.
+
+- **Blind to non-job factors.** School prestige, name, age, employment gaps,
+  photo — none of it is in the rubric, so it does not enter the decision.
+- **Work samples beat résumés.** Skills-based signals (a structured task, a code
+  sample, a portfolio teardown) predict performance better than résumé history;
+  >73% of companies now report a skills-based approach. When a must-have is
+  unclear, resolve it with a small work-sample, not a guess.
+- **Defer criminal history.** Fair-chance / "ban-the-box" laws in 37+ states and
+  150+ US cities require deferring criminal-history questions until after a
+  conditional offer, plus an individualized assessment. Do not put a
+  criminal-history box on the application form. (Candidate-data retention and
+  consent: `../gdpr-privacy/SKILL.md`.)
+
+Use the screen decision table above for the advance / work-sample / reject /
+parking-lot call.
+
+## Structure the interview loop
+
+Turn the 3–6 competencies into a loop where each interviewer owns distinct
+ground.
+
+1. **Map competencies to stages.** Each competency gets a clear owner. If four
+   people will all ask "tell me about a hard project", you have a duplicate-
+   coverage bug — split the competencies so each stage probes something the
+   others do not.
+2. **Build a structured question bank.** Behavioral / STAR + work-sample, tied to
+   each competency, asked in the same order for every candidate. Sample inline;
+   full bank in `references/templates.md`.
+3. **Calibrate before kickoff.** Run a 15-minute session on what a "5" vs a "3"
+   means on the scale *before* anyone interviews, so scores are comparable.
+
+Sample structured question (problem-solving, behavioral/STAR):
+
+```text
+"Walk me through the hardest technical tradeoff you owned in the last year."
+Follow-ups (STAR): What was the situation? What were YOUR options and the one
+you picked? What did you actually do? What was the measured result, and what
+would you change?
+```
+
+## The scorecard
+
+This is where gut-feel hiring dies. A structured scorecard with behavioral
+anchors lifts interview validity from ~.20 to ~.51 (most rigorous scoring ~.57)
+and a 2022 SHRM-cited figure puts bias reduction above 50% versus unstructured
+scoring. Shape it exactly:
+
+- **3–6 competencies.** Fewer misses dimensions; more than 6 dilutes focus and
+  loads the interviewer.
+- **5-point anchored scale.** Write the anchor text for at least the low / mid /
+  high points so a "4" means the same thing to everyone.
+- **A required evidence field.** Forces a quote or concrete example, not a vibe.
+- **One overall: Hire / On-Hold / No-Hire.**
+- **Score independently, submit before the debrief.** Fill it right after the
+  session (recency) and submit before the group talks, so no one anchors on the
+  loudest voice in the room.
+
+Skeleton:
+
+```text
+Candidate: ___   Role: ___   Interviewer: ___   Stage: ___
+
+Competency: Problem-solving
+  Score (1–5): __
+  Anchors — 1: gave a vague answer, no real tradeoff
+            3: described a decision but thin on alternatives/result
+            5: clear tradeoff, owned the call, measured the outcome
+  Evidence (required, quote/example): "____________________"
+
+[ repeat for each of the 3–6 competencies ]
+
+Overall recommendation:  [ ] Hire   [ ] On-Hold   [ ] No-Hire
+Rationale (one paragraph, tied to the evidence above): ______
+```
+
+Bad → Good entry:
+
+```text
+BAD:  Problem-solving: 7/10. Good vibes, seems smart, would grab a beer with him.
+GOOD: Problem-solving: 4/5. Evidence: "chose eventual consistency to cut p99 from
+      900ms to 120ms, named the staleness tradeoff and how they bounded it."
+```
+
+Full anchored template (one competency written out at all five levels) and the
+question bank: `references/templates.md`.
+
+## Debrief & decision
+
+Turn independent scores into one calibrated call.
+
+1. Collect all submitted scorecards — confirm they came in before the debrief.
+2. Surface disagreements: where scores diverge, go to the **evidence**, not the
+   loudest opinion. A "5" with a weak quote loses to a "3" with a strong one.
+3. Reach Hire / On-Hold / No-Hire and **write the rationale**, tied to the
+   evidence on the cards.
+4. **Retain the records.** EEOC requires keeping interview notes and scoring
+   tools at least 1 year after the decision (2 years for federal contractors).
+   The anchored scorecards with documented evidence *are* the defense if the
+   decision is ever challenged. Do not delete them.
+
+A loop that "still can't decide after four interviews" almost always lacks
+independent submitted scores and anchors — fix the structure, do not add a fifth
+interview.
+
+## AI & legal guardrails
+
+Before you let any model rank, score, or reject candidates, know these triggers.
+This skill *follows* the rules; it does not run the legal program — that is
+`../compliance/SKILL.md`.
+
+- **NYC Local Law 144** (enforced since 2023-07-05): any Automated Employment
+  Decision Tool needs an annual independent bias audit, public posting of the
+  results, and advance notice to candidates. No audit, no notice → do not deploy.
+- **EU AI Act:** recruitment / CV-screening / candidate-ranking AI is classed
+  *high-risk* (Annex III, Cat. 4). Obligations apply from **2 Dec 2027**
+  (deferred from 2 Aug 2026 by the Nov-2025 AI-omnibus). Deployer fines reach
+  €15M or 3% of global turnover. Colorado's AI Act effective date moved to 2027.
+- **Never auto-reject without human review.** A model can sort or flag; a person
+  makes the reject call. Keep the human in the loop and the evidence trail intact.
+
+## Anti-patterns
+
+| Anti-pattern | Why it fails | Do instead |
+|---|---|---|
+| "7/10, good vibes" rating | Unscoreable, bias-prone, indefensible | 5-point anchored scale + evidence quote |
+| Different questions per candidate | No comparison is valid | Same structured bank, same order |
+| Four interviewers, one question | Wastes the loop, no coverage | Map each competency to one owner |
+| 15-item must-have list | Self-filters qualified candidates (100% vs 60%) | ≤6 must-haves; rest are nice-to-haves |
+| Gender-coded words in the post | ~29% fewer applications, skews male | Strip and replace; check the word list |
+| Criminal-history box on the form | Violates fair-chance / ban-the-box law | Defer to post-conditional-offer |
+| Debrief before scores submitted | Groupthink anchors on the loudest voice | Independent scores in first, then talk |
+| Model auto-rejects résumés | LL144 / EU AI Act exposure, no human in loop | Model flags, human decides, audit + notice |
+| "Culture fit" as a competency | Coded bias, not job-related | Score job-related competencies only |
+| Screening on school / name / gap | Non-job factor, not in the rubric | Blind to it; rubric only |
+| Deleting interview notes | Breaks EEOC retention; no defense | Retain ≥1 yr (2 yr for fed contractors) |
+| Drifting into onboarding/payroll | Out of scope, wrong skill | Stop at the decision → `../people-ops/SKILL.md` |
+
+## References
+
+- `references/templates.md` — full anchored scorecard (one competency at all
+  five levels), the structured question bank by competency, a fill-in job-post
+  skeleton with the gender-coded word do/don't list, and a screening rubric
+  template.

package/skills/hiring/evals/README.md

@@ -0,0 +1,13 @@
+# Hiring evals
+
+`cases.yaml` holds the trigger / near-miss / capability cases for the `hiring`
+skill. There is no automated runner here — score by judgment. For each
+`should_trigger` prompt, confirm a router would reach for `hiring`; for each
+`should_not_trigger`, confirm it routes to the named sibling instead (the test is
+that the boundary holds, not just that hiring is skipped). For the `capability`
+case, give the scenario to an agent loaded with `SKILL.md` and check the output
+against every `must_include` line — a pass means it produced a split must/nice
+post with inclusive language and a 3–6-competency anchored scorecard with an
+evidence field and an overall recommendation, stated the independent-scoring
+rule, and stayed out of onboarding/payroll. This is a process skill, so the
+capability rubric is the rigor; there is no `verify.sh`.

package/skills/hiring/evals/cases.yaml

@@ -0,0 +1,41 @@
+skill: hiring
+
+should_trigger:
+  - prompt: "Write a job description for a senior backend engineer."
+    why: Core post-writing — must-haves vs nice-to-haves, inclusive language, pay band.
+  - prompt: "I've got 80 CVs for this role, help me screen them down."
+    why: Screening the pile against a consistent job-related rubric.
+  - prompt: "Build an interview scorecard for a product manager loop."
+    why: Anchored scorecard — 3–6 competencies, 5-point scale, evidence field.
+  - prompt: "Four of us interviewed the candidate and we still can't agree — help."
+    why: Non-obvious — the answer is independent scores + calibration, not a fifth interview.
+  - prompt: "Is it legal to use an AI tool to auto-reject résumés?"
+    why: Non-obvious — triggers the NYC LL144 / EU AI Act guardrail inside the hiring flow.
+  - prompt: "Necesito una scorecard para entrevistas y redacta la oferta de empleo."
+    why: Spanish — scorecard + job post, both core hiring outputs.
+
+should_not_trigger:
+  - prompt: "Onboard our new hire — set up payroll and their first-week plan."
+    route_to: people-ops
+    why: After the offer is accepted; hiring stops at the decision.
+  - prompt: "Source 50 passive candidates with a LinkedIn outreach sequence."
+    route_to: cold-outreach
+    why: Outbound sourcing; hiring screens inbound, it does not run the outreach sequence.
+  - prompt: "Draft the offer letter and employment contract terms."
+    route_to: contracts
+    why: Hiring produces the decision; contracts drafts the binding agreement.
+  - prompt: "Run our annual algorithmic bias audit and AI-Act compliance program."
+    route_to: compliance
+    why: The legal program itself, not the hiring-flow guardrail hiring follows.
+
+capability:
+  - scenario: "We're hiring a first marketing hire. Give me the job post and the interview scorecard."
+    must_include:
+      - Splits must-haves from nice-to-haves and keeps must-haves short (≤6).
+      - Flags or avoids gender-coded language in the post.
+      - States a pay band / pay transparency in the post.
+      - Scorecard has 3–6 competencies, a 5-point anchored scale, and a required evidence field.
+      - Scorecard has one overall Hire / On-Hold / No-Hire recommendation.
+      - States score-independently-and-submit-before-debrief.
+      - Evaluates job-related criteria only; does not use "culture fit" as a competency.
+      - Does NOT drift into onboarding / payroll (that is people-ops).

package/skills/hiring/references/templates.md

@@ -0,0 +1,118 @@
+# Hiring templates
+
+Copy-paste material for the `hiring` skill: a full anchored scorecard, a
+structured question bank, a job-post skeleton with the gender-coded word list,
+and a screening rubric. Adapt the wording to the role; keep the *shape*.
+
+## Anchored scorecard (one competency at all five levels)
+
+Write anchors like this for each of your 3–6 competencies. The example below is
+"Problem-solving"; mirror the structure for the others.
+
+```text
+Competency: Problem-solving
+  1 — Vague answer. No real problem, no tradeoff, no result. Hand-wavy.
+  2 — Names a problem but cannot explain the approach or alternatives.
+  3 — Describes a decision and what they did, but thin on alternatives or
+      on the measured outcome.
+  4 — Clear problem, considered alternatives, owned the call, knows the result.
+  5 — All of 4, plus named the tradeoff explicitly and how they bounded the
+      risk; reflects on what they would change.
+  Score (1–5): __
+  Evidence (required — quote or concrete example): "____________________"
+```
+
+Overall block, filled once per interviewer per candidate:
+
+```text
+Overall recommendation:  [ ] Hire   [ ] On-Hold   [ ] No-Hire
+Rationale (one paragraph, tied to the evidence above):
+  ____________________________________________________________
+Submitted before debrief?  [ ] yes
+```
+
+## Structured question bank (by competency)
+
+Ask the same questions in the same order for every candidate. Each line is a
+behavioral / STAR or work-sample prompt; the follow-ups dig for Situation, Task,
+Action, Result.
+
+```text
+Ownership
+  "Tell me about something you owned end to end that no one asked you to fix."
+  Follow-ups: What made it yours? What did YOU do vs the team? What changed?
+
+Problem-solving
+  "Walk me through the hardest tradeoff you owned in the last year."
+  Follow-ups: Options? The one you picked and why? Measured result? Redo?
+
+Collaboration
+  "Describe a disagreement with a peer on an approach. How did it resolve?"
+  Follow-ups: Their view vs yours? What did you do? Outcome for the work?
+
+Communication
+  "Explain a complex thing you had to make a non-expert understand."
+  Follow-ups: Who was the audience? How did you check they got it?
+
+Role-craft (work-sample, swap per role)
+  Engineer: review this 40-line diff aloud — what would you change and why?
+  PM: here's a vague feature request — write the one-paragraph problem statement.
+  Marketer: here's our product — draft a 3-line value prop and who it's for.
+```
+
+## Job-post skeleton
+
+```text
+[Title] · [pay band] · [location / remote policy]
+
+[2-line hook: the mission and why this role matters — apply brand-voice.]
+
+What you'll do
+  - [3–5 concrete outcomes, not a duty list]
+
+Must-haves (cap at ~6)
+  - [job-related, verifiable; nothing learnable-on-the-job]
+
+Nice-to-haves
+  - [everything else that helps but isn't required]
+
+Comp & location
+  - [pay range, location/remote, anything material]
+
+How to apply
+  - [low-friction; ask for work, not a cover-letter ritual]
+```
+
+### Gender-coded word do/don't
+
+| Don't (masculine-coded / exclusionary) | Do (neutral / inclusive) |
+|---|---|
+| rockstar, ninja, guru, wizard | engineer, specialist, owner of |
+| aggressive, dominant, fearless | proactive, decisive, confident |
+| ambitious, driven, competitive | motivated, goal-oriented |
+| strong, crush it, kill it | capable, deliver, ship |
+| "8+ years required" as a must-have | "experience building X" (skill, not tenure) |
+| "must thrive under pressure" | "comfortable with shifting priorities" |
+| 11 named technologies, all required | one or two core, rest as nice-to-have |
+
+## Screening rubric template
+
+Score every applicant on the same rows. Blind the non-job fields before review.
+
+```text
+Candidate: ___   Role: ___   Screener: ___
+
+Job-related criteria        | pass | partial | fail
+  [must-have 1]             |      |         |
+  [must-have 2]             |      |         |
+  [must-have 3]             |      |         |
+  [work-sample signal]      |      |         |
+
+Blind these — do NOT score on them:
+  school name · candidate name · age · employment gaps · photo · address
+
+Criminal history: NOT asked at this stage (defer to post-conditional-offer).
+
+Decision: [ ] advance  [ ] work-sample to resolve  [ ] reject  [ ] parking lot
+Job-related reason (required if reject): ______________________
+```