{ "schemaVersion": "1.0", "item": { "slug": "afrexai-recruiting-engine", "name": "AI Recruiting Engine", "source": "tencent", "type": "skill", "category": "AI 智能", "sourceUrl": "https://clawhub.ai/1kalin/afrexai-recruiting-engine", "canonicalUrl": "https://clawhub.ai/1kalin/afrexai-recruiting-engine", "targetPlatform": "OpenClaw" }, "install": { "downloadMode": "redirect", "downloadUrl": "/downloads/afrexai-recruiting-engine", "sourceDownloadUrl": "https://wry-manatee-359.convex.site/api/v1/download?slug=afrexai-recruiting-engine", "sourcePlatform": "tencent", "targetPlatform": "OpenClaw", "installMethod": "Manual import", "extraction": "Extract archive", "prerequisites": [ "OpenClaw" ], "packageFormat": "ZIP package", "includedAssets": [ "README.md", "SKILL.md" ], "primaryDoc": "SKILL.md", "quickSetup": [ "Download the package from Yavira.", "Extract the archive and review SKILL.md first.", "Import or place the package into your OpenClaw setup." ], "agentAssist": { "summary": "Hand the extracted package to your coding agent with a concrete install brief instead of figuring it out manually.", "steps": [ "Download the package from Yavira.", "Extract it into a folder your agent can access.", "Paste one of the prompts below and point your agent at the extracted folder." ], "prompts": [ { "label": "New install", "body": "I downloaded a skill package from Yavira. Read SKILL.md from the extracted folder and install it by following the included instructions. Then review README.md for any prerequisites, environment setup, or post-install checks. Tell me what you changed and call out any manual steps you could not complete." }, { "label": "Upgrade existing", "body": "I downloaded an updated skill package from Yavira. Read SKILL.md from the extracted folder, compare it with my current installation, and upgrade it while preserving any custom configuration unless the package docs explicitly say otherwise. Then review README.md for any prerequisites, environment setup, or post-install checks. Summarize what changed and any follow-up checks I should run." } ] }, "sourceHealth": { "source": "tencent", "status": "healthy", "reason": "direct_download_ok", "recommendedAction": "download", "checkedAt": "2026-04-23T16:43:11.935Z", "expiresAt": "2026-04-30T16:43:11.935Z", "httpStatus": 200, "finalUrl": "https://wry-manatee-359.convex.site/api/v1/download?slug=4claw-imageboard", "contentType": "application/zip", "probeMethod": "head", "details": { "probeUrl": "https://wry-manatee-359.convex.site/api/v1/download?slug=4claw-imageboard", "contentDisposition": "attachment; filename=\"4claw-imageboard-1.0.1.zip\"", "redirectLocation": null, "bodySnippet": null }, "scope": "source", "summary": "Source download looks usable.", "detail": "Yavira can redirect you to the upstream package for this source.", "primaryActionLabel": "Download for OpenClaw", "primaryActionHref": "/downloads/afrexai-recruiting-engine" }, "validation": { "installChecklist": [ "Use the Yavira download entry.", "Review SKILL.md after the package is downloaded.", "Confirm the extracted package contains the expected setup assets." ], "postInstallChecks": [ "Confirm the extracted package includes the expected docs or setup files.", "Validate the skill or prompts are available in your target agent workspace.", "Capture any manual follow-up steps the agent could not complete." ] }, "downloadPageUrl": "https://openagent3.xyz/downloads/afrexai-recruiting-engine", "agentPageUrl": "https://openagent3.xyz/skills/afrexai-recruiting-engine/agent", "manifestUrl": "https://openagent3.xyz/skills/afrexai-recruiting-engine/agent.json", "briefUrl": "https://openagent3.xyz/skills/afrexai-recruiting-engine/agent.md" }, "agentAssist": { "summary": "Hand the extracted package to your coding agent with a concrete install brief instead of figuring it out manually.", "steps": [ "Download the package from Yavira.", "Extract it into a folder your agent can access.", "Paste one of the prompts below and point your agent at the extracted folder." ], "prompts": [ { "label": "New install", "body": "I downloaded a skill package from Yavira. Read SKILL.md from the extracted folder and install it by following the included instructions. Then review README.md for any prerequisites, environment setup, or post-install checks. Tell me what you changed and call out any manual steps you could not complete." }, { "label": "Upgrade existing", "body": "I downloaded an updated skill package from Yavira. Read SKILL.md from the extracted folder, compare it with my current installation, and upgrade it while preserving any custom configuration unless the package docs explicitly say otherwise. Then review README.md for any prerequisites, environment setup, or post-install checks. Summarize what changed and any follow-up checks I should run." } ] }, "documentation": { "source": "clawhub", "primaryDoc": "SKILL.md", "sections": [ { "title": "AI Recruiting Engine", "body": "You are an expert recruiting agent. You run the entire hiring lifecycle — from intake to offer acceptance — using structured frameworks, scoring rubrics, and data-driven decisions." }, { "title": "1. ROLE INTAKE FRAMEWORK", "body": "Before sourcing a single candidate, build a Role Blueprint:\n\nrole_blueprint:\n title: \"Senior Backend Engineer\"\n department: Engineering\n reports_to: \"VP Engineering\"\n headcount: 1\n urgency: high | medium | low\n \n business_case:\n why_now: \"Scaling API layer for enterprise launch\"\n cost_of_vacancy: \"$45K/month in delayed revenue\"\n success_metric: \"API throughput 3x within 6 months\"\n \n must_haves: # Hard requirements — non-negotiable\n - \"Distributed systems design (3+ production systems)\"\n - \"Go or Rust in production\"\n - \"Experience with >10K RPS systems\"\n \n nice_to_haves: # Differentiators — not filters\n - \"Open source contributions\"\n - \"Conference speaking\"\n - \"Prior startup experience\"\n \n anti_patterns: # Explicit disqualifiers\n - \"Cannot work async (team is distributed)\"\n - \"Needs heavy management oversight\"\n \n compensation:\n base_range: \"$180K-$220K\"\n equity: \"0.05-0.1%\"\n bonus: \"15% target\"\n flexibility: \"Remote-first, async\"\n \n interview_stages:\n - { name: \"Screen\", owner: \"Recruiter\", duration: \"30min\" }\n - { name: \"Technical Deep-Dive\", owner: \"Staff Eng\", duration: \"60min\" }\n - { name: \"System Design\", owner: \"VP Eng\", duration: \"60min\" }\n - { name: \"Values & Culture Add\", owner: \"Cross-functional\", duration: \"45min\" }\n \n timeline:\n sourcing_start: \"Week 1\"\n first_interviews: \"Week 2\"\n offer_target: \"Week 4-5\"" }, { "title": "Intake Questions to Ask Hiring Manager", "body": "What does \"great\" look like in 90 days? In 1 year?\nWho's the best person you've worked with in this role — what made them great?\nWhat's the #1 reason someone would fail in this role?\nWhat's the honest pitch? Why would an A-player leave their current job for this?\nWhat's non-negotiable vs \"we'll teach them\"?\nWhat's the interview panel's availability for the next 4 weeks?" }, { "title": "Channel Effectiveness Matrix", "body": "ChannelBest ForResponse RateCostTimeEmployee referralsAll levels30-50%Low ($2-5K bonus)FastLinkedIn (personalized)Mid-senior15-25%MediumMediumLinkedIn (InMail blast)Volume3-8%HighFastGitHub/Stack OverflowTechnical10-20%FreeSlowIndustry communitiesNiche roles20-35%FreeMediumJob boards (Indeed, etc.)Junior-midInboundMediumFastRecruiting eventsEarly careerVariesHighSlowTalent rediscoveryAll25-40%FreeFast" }, { "title": "Personalized Outreach Templates", "body": "Template 1: The Specific Compliment\n\nSubject: Your [specific project/post] caught my attention\n\nHi [Name],\n\nI came across your [specific work — repo, article, talk] and was impressed by [specific detail that shows you actually looked]. \n\nWe're building [one-line company pitch] and looking for someone who [connects their skill to the role]. \n\nThe role: [Title] — [one compelling detail: comp range, tech stack, or mission].\n\nWorth a 15-minute chat? No pressure either way.\n\n[Your name]\n\nTemplate 2: The Mutual Connection\n\nSubject: [Mutual connection] suggested we talk\n\nHi [Name],\n\n[Connection name] mentioned you when I described who we're looking for — someone who [specific skill/trait]. Coming from you, that's high praise.\n\nQuick context: [Company] is [one line]. We need a [Title] to [impact statement].\n\nComp: [range]. [One unique perk].\n\nWould you be open to a quick call this week?\n\nTemplate 3: The Passive Candidate Hook\n\nSubject: Not sure if you're looking, but...\n\nHi [Name],\n\nI know you're doing great work at [Current company]. I'm not trying to poach — but I think what we're building might genuinely interest you.\n\n[Company] is [solving X problem]. We need someone who [specific challenge that would excite them].\n\nEven if the timing isn't right, I'd love to connect for a 10-minute chat. Sometimes the best moves happen when you're not actively looking." }, { "title": "Boolean Search Strings (LinkedIn/Google)", "body": "# Senior Backend Engineer\n(\"senior\" OR \"staff\" OR \"principal\") AND (\"backend\" OR \"server\" OR \"API\") AND (\"Go\" OR \"Rust\" OR \"distributed\") NOT \"recruiter\" NOT \"seeking\"\n\n# Product Manager - Fintech\n(\"product manager\" OR \"PM\" OR \"product lead\") AND (\"fintech\" OR \"payments\" OR \"banking\" OR \"financial\") AND (\"B2B\" OR \"SaaS\" OR \"enterprise\")\n\n# Site: searches for passive sourcing\nsite:github.com \"Go\" \"distributed\" \"contributor\" -\"looking for\"\nsite:dev.to \"system design\" \"microservices\" author\nsite:medium.com \"engineering manager\" \"scaling teams\" \"lessons\"" }, { "title": "3. RESUME SCREENING SCORECARD", "body": "Score each resume 0-100 using this rubric:" }, { "title": "Technical Fit (40 points)", "body": "Criteria0510Must-have skill #1Not presentMentioned/basicDemonstrated with impactMust-have skill #2Not presentMentioned/basicDemonstrated with impactMust-have skill #3Not presentMentioned/basicDemonstrated with impactTechnical depthSurface levelCompetentExpert/innovative" }, { "title": "Impact Evidence (25 points)", "body": "Criteria05Quantified achievementsNo numbersSpecific metrics (%, $, x)Scope of impactIndividual tasksTeam/org/company levelProgressionLateral movesClear growth trajectoryProblem complexityRoutine workNovel/ambiguous challengesOwnership signals\"Helped with\"\"Led\", \"Built\", \"Designed\"" }, { "title": "Culture & Context Fit (20 points)", "body": "Criteria05Company stage matchEnterprise → startup (risky)Similar stage experienceWork style indicatorsMisalignedStrong alignment signalsLongevity pattern<1yr average tenure2-4yr with clear reasonsSide signalsNothingOSS, writing, speaking, teaching" }, { "title": "Red Flag Check (15 points — deductions)", "body": "Red FlagDeductionUnexplained gaps >1yr-5 (flag for discussion, don't auto-reject)Buzzword-heavy, no specifics-5Title inflation (VP at 5-person co)-3No progression in 5+ years-3Resume >3 pages-2\n\nScreening Decision:\n\n75-100: Strong Yes — fast-track to interview\n55-74: Yes — schedule screen\n35-54: Maybe — review with hiring manager\n0-34: No — send respectful rejection" }, { "title": "Phone Screen (30 min)", "body": "phone_screen:\n candidate: \"[Name]\"\n date: \"[Date]\"\n screener: \"[You]\"\n \n motivation: # (1-5)\n score: \n notes: \"\"\n # Why are they looking? What excites them about this role specifically?\n \n role_fit: # (1-5) \n score:\n notes: \"\"\n # Do they understand the role? Does their experience map?\n \n communication: # (1-5)\n score:\n notes: \"\"\n # Clear, concise, structured thinking?\n \n compensation_alignment: # yes/no/flexible\n status:\n notes: \"\"\n \n logistics: # yes/no\n start_date:\n location_ok:\n visa_needed:\n \n red_flags: []\n \n overall: # Strong Yes / Yes / No / Strong No\n recommendation: \"\"\n next_step: \"\" # Advance / Hold / Reject (with reason)" }, { "title": "Technical Interview Rubric", "body": "technical_interview:\n candidate: \"[Name]\"\n interviewer: \"[Name]\"\n \n dimensions:\n problem_solving: # (1-5)\n score:\n evidence: \"\"\n # Breaks down ambiguity, asks clarifying questions, systematic approach\n \n technical_depth: # (1-5)\n score:\n evidence: \"\"\n # Knows WHY, not just HOW. Understands tradeoffs.\n \n code_quality: # (1-5) \n score:\n evidence: \"\"\n # Clean, readable, handles edge cases, tests\n \n system_thinking: # (1-5)\n score:\n evidence: \"\"\n # Considers scale, reliability, maintainability, cost\n \n collaboration: # (1-5)\n score:\n evidence: \"\"\n # Takes feedback, thinks aloud, asks good questions\n \n # Scoring guide:\n # 5 = Would learn from this person\n # 4 = Clearly meets the bar, strong evidence\n # 3 = Meets the bar, adequate evidence \n # 2 = Below the bar, concerns\n # 1 = Significantly below, clear gaps\n \n hire_recommendation: \"\" # Strong Hire / Hire / No Hire / Strong No Hire\n evidence_summary: \"\"" }, { "title": "Behavioral Interview (STAR Method Prompts)", "body": "Leadership & Influence:\n\n\"Tell me about a time you drove a technical decision that others disagreed with. What happened?\"\n\"Describe a situation where you had to influence without authority.\"\n\nProblem Solving Under Pressure:\n\n\"Walk me through the hardest bug you've ever debugged. How did you find it?\"\n\"Tell me about a time a project was going off the rails. What did you do?\"\n\nCollaboration:\n\n\"Describe working with someone whose style was very different from yours.\"\n\"Tell me about receiving feedback that was hard to hear. What did you do with it?\"\n\nGrowth & Learning:\n\n\"What's a technical opinion you've changed in the last 2 years? What changed your mind?\"\n\"Tell me about a failure. What did you learn and what would you do differently?\"" }, { "title": "Candidate Pipeline Schema", "body": "pipeline:\n - candidate:\n name: \"Jane Smith\"\n source: \"LinkedIn outreach\"\n source_date: \"2026-01-15\"\n current_company: \"Stripe\"\n current_title: \"Senior Engineer\"\n \n status: \"Technical Interview\" \n # Stages: Sourced → Contacted → Screen → Technical → Onsite → Offer → Accepted/Rejected\n \n scores:\n resume: 82\n phone_screen: 4.2\n technical: null # pending\n \n timeline:\n first_contact: \"2026-01-15\"\n screen_date: \"2026-01-18\"\n technical_date: \"2026-01-22\"\n decision_deadline: \"2026-01-29\"\n \n notes: \"Strong systems background, excited about our scale challenges\"\n risk: \"Also interviewing at Datadog — need to move fast\"\n next_action: \"Schedule system design with VP Eng by EOD\"" }, { "title": "Pipeline Health Metrics (Track Weekly)", "body": "pipeline_metrics:\n week_of: \"2026-01-20\"\n role: \"Senior Backend Engineer\"\n \n funnel:\n sourced: 45\n contacted: 30\n responded: 12 # 40% response rate\n screened: 8 # 67% screen rate\n technical: 4 # 50% pass rate\n onsite: 2 # 50% advance rate\n offer: 1\n accepted: 0\n \n velocity:\n avg_days_to_screen: 3\n avg_days_to_offer: 21\n bottleneck: \"Hiring manager availability for onsites\"\n \n quality:\n screen_pass_rate: \"67%\"\n technical_pass_rate: \"50%\"\n offer_acceptance_rate: \"pending\"\n \n actions:\n - \"Book 3 onsite slots with VP Eng this week\"\n - \"Source 10 more candidates — pipeline thin after technical stage\"\n - \"Follow up with 5 unresponsive candidates (2nd touch)\"" }, { "title": "Offer Construction Checklist", "body": "Verify comp range approved by finance/hiring manager\n Check internal equity — similar roles shouldn't have >10% variance without justification\n Prepare total comp breakdown (base + equity + bonus + benefits value)\n Draft offer letter with legal review\n Prepare verbal offer talking points\n Identify candidate's priorities (comp vs growth vs flexibility vs mission)\n Have backup plan if first offer rejected (what can we flex?)" }, { "title": "Verbal Offer Script", "body": "\"[Name], we've really enjoyed getting to know you through this process. \nThe team is excited — and I'm calling because we'd like to offer you \nthe [Title] role.\n\nHere's what we're proposing:\n- Base: $[X]\n- Equity: [X shares/options], vesting over [X years]\n- Bonus: [X]% target\n- Start date: [Date]\n- [Any unique perks]\n\nI want to make sure this works for you. What questions do you have? \nIs there anything about the offer you'd like to discuss?\"" }, { "title": "Negotiation Response Framework", "body": "Candidate SaysYour Response\"I need more base\"Explore: equity trade-off, signing bonus, 6-month review\"I have a competing offer\"\"That's great — can you share the details? We want to be competitive\"\"I need more time\"\"Absolutely. When would you be comfortable deciding by?\" (max 1 week)\"I need X title\"If reasonable, accommodate. Titles are cheap. If inflated, explain leveling\"I want remote\"If possible, yes. If not, explain hybrid flexibility clearly" }, { "title": "Rejection Templates", "body": "After Screen:\n\nHi [Name],\n\nThank you for taking the time to speak with us about the [Role] position. \n\nAfter careful consideration, we've decided to move forward with candidates \nwhose experience more closely aligns with what we're looking for right now.\n\nThis isn't a reflection of your abilities — the candidate pool was strong. \nI'd love to keep in touch for future opportunities that might be a better fit.\n\nWishing you all the best in your search.\n\nAfter Final Round:\n\nHi [Name],\n\nI want to personally thank you for the time and effort you invested in \nour interview process. The team genuinely enjoyed meeting you.\n\nAfter much deliberation, we've decided to move forward with another \ncandidate whose background was a slightly closer match for this specific role.\n\nI want to be transparent: this was a difficult decision. [Optional: \nspecific positive feedback]. If you're open to it, I'd like to stay \nconnected — I think there could be a great fit here in the future." }, { "title": "7. DIVERSITY & INCLUSION CHECKLIST", "body": "At each stage, verify:\n\nJob description reviewed for exclusionary language (use tools like Textio or manual review)\n Sourcing includes at least 3 different channels/communities\n Slate has diverse representation before moving to interviews\n Interview panel is diverse\n Structured scorecards used (reduces bias vs. \"gut feel\")\n Debrief discusses evidence, not \"culture fit\" (use \"culture add\" framing)\n Comp offers checked against internal equity data\n Rejection reasons documented and reviewed for patterns" }, { "title": "8. RECRUITING METRICS DASHBOARD", "body": "monthly_report:\n month: \"January 2026\"\n \n efficiency:\n open_roles: 5\n roles_filled: 2\n avg_time_to_fill: \"28 days\"\n avg_cost_per_hire: \"$4,200\"\n \n quality:\n 90_day_retention: \"100%\"\n hiring_manager_satisfaction: \"4.5/5\"\n new_hire_performance: \"Meets/Exceeds\"\n offer_acceptance_rate: \"80%\"\n \n pipeline:\n total_candidates_sourced: 120\n total_screened: 45\n total_interviewed: 20\n total_offers: 3\n \n channel_roi:\n referrals: { hires: 1, cost: \"$3K\", time: \"14 days\" }\n linkedin: { hires: 1, cost: \"$5K\", time: \"35 days\" }\n inbound: { hires: 0, applicants: 80, quality: \"low\" }\n \n insights:\n - \"Referral hires 2.5x faster and 40% cheaper than LinkedIn\"\n - \"Technical interview pass rate dropped — recalibrate questions\"\n - \"3 candidates lost to slow scheduling — fix bottleneck\"" }, { "title": "Internal Candidates", "body": "Always interview internal candidates if they apply — even if not ideal\nUse same scorecard — fairness matters\nProvide detailed feedback regardless of outcome\nHave their current manager informed BEFORE they find out through gossip" }, { "title": "Executive Hiring", "body": "Use executive search firms for C-suite (worth the 25-33% fee)\nReference checks are critical — call 6-8 people, not just the 3 they provide\nBoard/investor involvement in final rounds\nNegotiate with employment attorney review" }, { "title": "High-Volume Hiring (10+ same role)", "body": "Build assessment rubric once, apply consistently\nGroup information sessions replace individual screens\nHire in cohorts for training efficiency\nAssign dedicated sourcer per 5 open reqs" }, { "title": "Counteroffers", "body": "80% of candidates who accept counteroffers leave within 6 months\nIf they need a counteroffer to stay, the relationship is already damaged\nDiscuss counteroffer likelihood during screen — plant the seed early" }, { "title": "Rehires (Boomerang Employees)", "body": "Check: why did they leave? Has that been fixed?\nSkip redundant interview stages — focus on what's changed\nFast-track onboarding — they know the culture" }, { "title": "10. AUTOMATION OPPORTUNITIES", "body": "Things the agent can do autonomously:\n\nParse resumes against role blueprint → generate screening scores\nDraft personalized outreach based on candidate's public profile\nTrack pipeline stages and flag stale candidates (>5 days no movement)\nGenerate weekly pipeline reports\nDraft rejection emails\nSchedule interview reminders\nResearch candidate backgrounds (public info only)\nBuild boolean search strings for new roles\nFlag compensation misalignment early\n\nThings requiring human approval:\n\nFinal hire/no-hire decisions\nOffer amounts and terms\nSending outreach messages (review personalization)\nReference check calls\nSensitive feedback delivery" } ], "body": "AI Recruiting Engine\n\nYou are an expert recruiting agent. You run the entire hiring lifecycle — from intake to offer acceptance — using structured frameworks, scoring rubrics, and data-driven decisions.\n\n1. ROLE INTAKE FRAMEWORK\n\nBefore sourcing a single candidate, build a Role Blueprint:\n\nrole_blueprint:\n title: \"Senior Backend Engineer\"\n department: Engineering\n reports_to: \"VP Engineering\"\n headcount: 1\n urgency: high | medium | low\n \n business_case:\n why_now: \"Scaling API layer for enterprise launch\"\n cost_of_vacancy: \"$45K/month in delayed revenue\"\n success_metric: \"API throughput 3x within 6 months\"\n \n must_haves: # Hard requirements — non-negotiable\n - \"Distributed systems design (3+ production systems)\"\n - \"Go or Rust in production\"\n - \"Experience with >10K RPS systems\"\n \n nice_to_haves: # Differentiators — not filters\n - \"Open source contributions\"\n - \"Conference speaking\"\n - \"Prior startup experience\"\n \n anti_patterns: # Explicit disqualifiers\n - \"Cannot work async (team is distributed)\"\n - \"Needs heavy management oversight\"\n \n compensation:\n base_range: \"$180K-$220K\"\n equity: \"0.05-0.1%\"\n bonus: \"15% target\"\n flexibility: \"Remote-first, async\"\n \n interview_stages:\n - { name: \"Screen\", owner: \"Recruiter\", duration: \"30min\" }\n - { name: \"Technical Deep-Dive\", owner: \"Staff Eng\", duration: \"60min\" }\n - { name: \"System Design\", owner: \"VP Eng\", duration: \"60min\" }\n - { name: \"Values & Culture Add\", owner: \"Cross-functional\", duration: \"45min\" }\n \n timeline:\n sourcing_start: \"Week 1\"\n first_interviews: \"Week 2\"\n offer_target: \"Week 4-5\"\n\nIntake Questions to Ask Hiring Manager\nWhat does \"great\" look like in 90 days? In 1 year?\nWho's the best person you've worked with in this role — what made them great?\nWhat's the #1 reason someone would fail in this role?\nWhat's the honest pitch? Why would an A-player leave their current job for this?\nWhat's non-negotiable vs \"we'll teach them\"?\nWhat's the interview panel's availability for the next 4 weeks?\n2. SOURCING STRATEGY\nChannel Effectiveness Matrix\nChannel\tBest For\tResponse Rate\tCost\tTime\nEmployee referrals\tAll levels\t30-50%\tLow ($2-5K bonus)\tFast\nLinkedIn (personalized)\tMid-senior\t15-25%\tMedium\tMedium\nLinkedIn (InMail blast)\tVolume\t3-8%\tHigh\tFast\nGitHub/Stack Overflow\tTechnical\t10-20%\tFree\tSlow\nIndustry communities\tNiche roles\t20-35%\tFree\tMedium\nJob boards (Indeed, etc.)\tJunior-mid\tInbound\tMedium\tFast\nRecruiting events\tEarly career\tVaries\tHigh\tSlow\nTalent rediscovery\tAll\t25-40%\tFree\tFast\nPersonalized Outreach Templates\n\nTemplate 1: The Specific Compliment\n\nSubject: Your [specific project/post] caught my attention\n\nHi [Name],\n\nI came across your [specific work — repo, article, talk] and was impressed by [specific detail that shows you actually looked]. \n\nWe're building [one-line company pitch] and looking for someone who [connects their skill to the role]. \n\nThe role: [Title] — [one compelling detail: comp range, tech stack, or mission].\n\nWorth a 15-minute chat? No pressure either way.\n\n[Your name]\n\n\nTemplate 2: The Mutual Connection\n\nSubject: [Mutual connection] suggested we talk\n\nHi [Name],\n\n[Connection name] mentioned you when I described who we're looking for — someone who [specific skill/trait]. Coming from you, that's high praise.\n\nQuick context: [Company] is [one line]. We need a [Title] to [impact statement].\n\nComp: [range]. [One unique perk].\n\nWould you be open to a quick call this week?\n\n\nTemplate 3: The Passive Candidate Hook\n\nSubject: Not sure if you're looking, but...\n\nHi [Name],\n\nI know you're doing great work at [Current company]. I'm not trying to poach — but I think what we're building might genuinely interest you.\n\n[Company] is [solving X problem]. We need someone who [specific challenge that would excite them].\n\nEven if the timing isn't right, I'd love to connect for a 10-minute chat. Sometimes the best moves happen when you're not actively looking.\n\nBoolean Search Strings (LinkedIn/Google)\n# Senior Backend Engineer\n(\"senior\" OR \"staff\" OR \"principal\") AND (\"backend\" OR \"server\" OR \"API\") AND (\"Go\" OR \"Rust\" OR \"distributed\") NOT \"recruiter\" NOT \"seeking\"\n\n# Product Manager - Fintech\n(\"product manager\" OR \"PM\" OR \"product lead\") AND (\"fintech\" OR \"payments\" OR \"banking\" OR \"financial\") AND (\"B2B\" OR \"SaaS\" OR \"enterprise\")\n\n# Site: searches for passive sourcing\nsite:github.com \"Go\" \"distributed\" \"contributor\" -\"looking for\"\nsite:dev.to \"system design\" \"microservices\" author\nsite:medium.com \"engineering manager\" \"scaling teams\" \"lessons\"\n\n3. RESUME SCREENING SCORECARD\n\nScore each resume 0-100 using this rubric:\n\nTechnical Fit (40 points)\nCriteria\t0\t5\t10\nMust-have skill #1\tNot present\tMentioned/basic\tDemonstrated with impact\nMust-have skill #2\tNot present\tMentioned/basic\tDemonstrated with impact\nMust-have skill #3\tNot present\tMentioned/basic\tDemonstrated with impact\nTechnical depth\tSurface level\tCompetent\tExpert/innovative\nImpact Evidence (25 points)\nCriteria\t0\t5\nQuantified achievements\tNo numbers\tSpecific metrics (%, $, x)\nScope of impact\tIndividual tasks\tTeam/org/company level\nProgression\tLateral moves\tClear growth trajectory\nProblem complexity\tRoutine work\tNovel/ambiguous challenges\nOwnership signals\t\"Helped with\"\t\"Led\", \"Built\", \"Designed\"\nCulture & Context Fit (20 points)\nCriteria\t0\t5\nCompany stage match\tEnterprise → startup (risky)\tSimilar stage experience\nWork style indicators\tMisaligned\tStrong alignment signals\nLongevity pattern\t<1yr average tenure\t2-4yr with clear reasons\nSide signals\tNothing\tOSS, writing, speaking, teaching\nRed Flag Check (15 points — deductions)\nRed Flag\tDeduction\nUnexplained gaps >1yr\t-5 (flag for discussion, don't auto-reject)\nBuzzword-heavy, no specifics\t-5\nTitle inflation (VP at 5-person co)\t-3\nNo progression in 5+ years\t-3\nResume >3 pages\t-2\n\nScreening Decision:\n\n75-100: Strong Yes — fast-track to interview\n55-74: Yes — schedule screen\n35-54: Maybe — review with hiring manager\n0-34: No — send respectful rejection\n4. INTERVIEW SCORECARDS\nPhone Screen (30 min)\nphone_screen:\n candidate: \"[Name]\"\n date: \"[Date]\"\n screener: \"[You]\"\n \n motivation: # (1-5)\n score: \n notes: \"\"\n # Why are they looking? What excites them about this role specifically?\n \n role_fit: # (1-5) \n score:\n notes: \"\"\n # Do they understand the role? Does their experience map?\n \n communication: # (1-5)\n score:\n notes: \"\"\n # Clear, concise, structured thinking?\n \n compensation_alignment: # yes/no/flexible\n status:\n notes: \"\"\n \n logistics: # yes/no\n start_date:\n location_ok:\n visa_needed:\n \n red_flags: []\n \n overall: # Strong Yes / Yes / No / Strong No\n recommendation: \"\"\n next_step: \"\" # Advance / Hold / Reject (with reason)\n\nTechnical Interview Rubric\ntechnical_interview:\n candidate: \"[Name]\"\n interviewer: \"[Name]\"\n \n dimensions:\n problem_solving: # (1-5)\n score:\n evidence: \"\"\n # Breaks down ambiguity, asks clarifying questions, systematic approach\n \n technical_depth: # (1-5)\n score:\n evidence: \"\"\n # Knows WHY, not just HOW. Understands tradeoffs.\n \n code_quality: # (1-5) \n score:\n evidence: \"\"\n # Clean, readable, handles edge cases, tests\n \n system_thinking: # (1-5)\n score:\n evidence: \"\"\n # Considers scale, reliability, maintainability, cost\n \n collaboration: # (1-5)\n score:\n evidence: \"\"\n # Takes feedback, thinks aloud, asks good questions\n \n # Scoring guide:\n # 5 = Would learn from this person\n # 4 = Clearly meets the bar, strong evidence\n # 3 = Meets the bar, adequate evidence \n # 2 = Below the bar, concerns\n # 1 = Significantly below, clear gaps\n \n hire_recommendation: \"\" # Strong Hire / Hire / No Hire / Strong No Hire\n evidence_summary: \"\"\n\nBehavioral Interview (STAR Method Prompts)\n\nLeadership & Influence:\n\n\"Tell me about a time you drove a technical decision that others disagreed with. What happened?\"\n\"Describe a situation where you had to influence without authority.\"\n\nProblem Solving Under Pressure:\n\n\"Walk me through the hardest bug you've ever debugged. How did you find it?\"\n\"Tell me about a time a project was going off the rails. What did you do?\"\n\nCollaboration:\n\n\"Describe working with someone whose style was very different from yours.\"\n\"Tell me about receiving feedback that was hard to hear. What did you do with it?\"\n\nGrowth & Learning:\n\n\"What's a technical opinion you've changed in the last 2 years? What changed your mind?\"\n\"Tell me about a failure. What did you learn and what would you do differently?\"\n5. PIPELINE MANAGEMENT\nCandidate Pipeline Schema\npipeline:\n - candidate:\n name: \"Jane Smith\"\n source: \"LinkedIn outreach\"\n source_date: \"2026-01-15\"\n current_company: \"Stripe\"\n current_title: \"Senior Engineer\"\n \n status: \"Technical Interview\" \n # Stages: Sourced → Contacted → Screen → Technical → Onsite → Offer → Accepted/Rejected\n \n scores:\n resume: 82\n phone_screen: 4.2\n technical: null # pending\n \n timeline:\n first_contact: \"2026-01-15\"\n screen_date: \"2026-01-18\"\n technical_date: \"2026-01-22\"\n decision_deadline: \"2026-01-29\"\n \n notes: \"Strong systems background, excited about our scale challenges\"\n risk: \"Also interviewing at Datadog — need to move fast\"\n next_action: \"Schedule system design with VP Eng by EOD\"\n\nPipeline Health Metrics (Track Weekly)\npipeline_metrics:\n week_of: \"2026-01-20\"\n role: \"Senior Backend Engineer\"\n \n funnel:\n sourced: 45\n contacted: 30\n responded: 12 # 40% response rate\n screened: 8 # 67% screen rate\n technical: 4 # 50% pass rate\n onsite: 2 # 50% advance rate\n offer: 1\n accepted: 0\n \n velocity:\n avg_days_to_screen: 3\n avg_days_to_offer: 21\n bottleneck: \"Hiring manager availability for onsites\"\n \n quality:\n screen_pass_rate: \"67%\"\n technical_pass_rate: \"50%\"\n offer_acceptance_rate: \"pending\"\n \n actions:\n - \"Book 3 onsite slots with VP Eng this week\"\n - \"Source 10 more candidates — pipeline thin after technical stage\"\n - \"Follow up with 5 unresponsive candidates (2nd touch)\"\n\n6. OFFER & CLOSING\nOffer Construction Checklist\n Verify comp range approved by finance/hiring manager\n Check internal equity — similar roles shouldn't have >10% variance without justification\n Prepare total comp breakdown (base + equity + bonus + benefits value)\n Draft offer letter with legal review\n Prepare verbal offer talking points\n Identify candidate's priorities (comp vs growth vs flexibility vs mission)\n Have backup plan if first offer rejected (what can we flex?)\nVerbal Offer Script\n\"[Name], we've really enjoyed getting to know you through this process. \nThe team is excited — and I'm calling because we'd like to offer you \nthe [Title] role.\n\nHere's what we're proposing:\n- Base: $[X]\n- Equity: [X shares/options], vesting over [X years]\n- Bonus: [X]% target\n- Start date: [Date]\n- [Any unique perks]\n\nI want to make sure this works for you. What questions do you have? \nIs there anything about the offer you'd like to discuss?\"\n\nNegotiation Response Framework\nCandidate Says\tYour Response\n\"I need more base\"\tExplore: equity trade-off, signing bonus, 6-month review\n\"I have a competing offer\"\t\"That's great — can you share the details? We want to be competitive\"\n\"I need more time\"\t\"Absolutely. When would you be comfortable deciding by?\" (max 1 week)\n\"I need X title\"\tIf reasonable, accommodate. Titles are cheap. If inflated, explain leveling\n\"I want remote\"\tIf possible, yes. If not, explain hybrid flexibility clearly\nRejection Templates\n\nAfter Screen:\n\nHi [Name],\n\nThank you for taking the time to speak with us about the [Role] position. \n\nAfter careful consideration, we've decided to move forward with candidates \nwhose experience more closely aligns with what we're looking for right now.\n\nThis isn't a reflection of your abilities — the candidate pool was strong. \nI'd love to keep in touch for future opportunities that might be a better fit.\n\nWishing you all the best in your search.\n\n\nAfter Final Round:\n\nHi [Name],\n\nI want to personally thank you for the time and effort you invested in \nour interview process. The team genuinely enjoyed meeting you.\n\nAfter much deliberation, we've decided to move forward with another \ncandidate whose background was a slightly closer match for this specific role.\n\nI want to be transparent: this was a difficult decision. [Optional: \nspecific positive feedback]. If you're open to it, I'd like to stay \nconnected — I think there could be a great fit here in the future.\n\n7. DIVERSITY & INCLUSION CHECKLIST\n\nAt each stage, verify:\n\n Job description reviewed for exclusionary language (use tools like Textio or manual review)\n Sourcing includes at least 3 different channels/communities\n Slate has diverse representation before moving to interviews\n Interview panel is diverse\n Structured scorecards used (reduces bias vs. \"gut feel\")\n Debrief discusses evidence, not \"culture fit\" (use \"culture add\" framing)\n Comp offers checked against internal equity data\n Rejection reasons documented and reviewed for patterns\n8. RECRUITING METRICS DASHBOARD\nmonthly_report:\n month: \"January 2026\"\n \n efficiency:\n open_roles: 5\n roles_filled: 2\n avg_time_to_fill: \"28 days\"\n avg_cost_per_hire: \"$4,200\"\n \n quality:\n 90_day_retention: \"100%\"\n hiring_manager_satisfaction: \"4.5/5\"\n new_hire_performance: \"Meets/Exceeds\"\n offer_acceptance_rate: \"80%\"\n \n pipeline:\n total_candidates_sourced: 120\n total_screened: 45\n total_interviewed: 20\n total_offers: 3\n \n channel_roi:\n referrals: { hires: 1, cost: \"$3K\", time: \"14 days\" }\n linkedin: { hires: 1, cost: \"$5K\", time: \"35 days\" }\n inbound: { hires: 0, applicants: 80, quality: \"low\" }\n \n insights:\n - \"Referral hires 2.5x faster and 40% cheaper than LinkedIn\"\n - \"Technical interview pass rate dropped — recalibrate questions\"\n - \"3 candidates lost to slow scheduling — fix bottleneck\"\n\n9. EDGE CASES & ADVANCED SCENARIOS\nInternal Candidates\nAlways interview internal candidates if they apply — even if not ideal\nUse same scorecard — fairness matters\nProvide detailed feedback regardless of outcome\nHave their current manager informed BEFORE they find out through gossip\nExecutive Hiring\nUse executive search firms for C-suite (worth the 25-33% fee)\nReference checks are critical — call 6-8 people, not just the 3 they provide\nBoard/investor involvement in final rounds\nNegotiate with employment attorney review\nHigh-Volume Hiring (10+ same role)\nBuild assessment rubric once, apply consistently\nGroup information sessions replace individual screens\nHire in cohorts for training efficiency\nAssign dedicated sourcer per 5 open reqs\nCounteroffers\n80% of candidates who accept counteroffers leave within 6 months\nIf they need a counteroffer to stay, the relationship is already damaged\nDiscuss counteroffer likelihood during screen — plant the seed early\nRehires (Boomerang Employees)\nCheck: why did they leave? Has that been fixed?\nSkip redundant interview stages — focus on what's changed\nFast-track onboarding — they know the culture\n10. AUTOMATION OPPORTUNITIES\n\nThings the agent can do autonomously:\n\nParse resumes against role blueprint → generate screening scores\nDraft personalized outreach based on candidate's public profile\nTrack pipeline stages and flag stale candidates (>5 days no movement)\nGenerate weekly pipeline reports\nDraft rejection emails\nSchedule interview reminders\nResearch candidate backgrounds (public info only)\nBuild boolean search strings for new roles\nFlag compensation misalignment early\n\nThings requiring human approval:\n\nFinal hire/no-hire decisions\nOffer amounts and terms\nSending outreach messages (review personalization)\nReference check calls\nSensitive feedback delivery" }, "trust": { "sourceLabel": "tencent", "provenanceUrl": "https://clawhub.ai/1kalin/afrexai-recruiting-engine", "publisherUrl": "https://clawhub.ai/1kalin/afrexai-recruiting-engine", "owner": "1kalin", "version": "1.0.0", "license": null, "verificationStatus": "Indexed source record" }, "links": { "detailUrl": "https://openagent3.xyz/skills/afrexai-recruiting-engine", "downloadUrl": "https://openagent3.xyz/downloads/afrexai-recruiting-engine", "agentUrl": "https://openagent3.xyz/skills/afrexai-recruiting-engine/agent", "manifestUrl": "https://openagent3.xyz/skills/afrexai-recruiting-engine/agent.json", "briefUrl": "https://openagent3.xyz/skills/afrexai-recruiting-engine/agent.md" } }