Skill: mikonos/interview-designer (version 1.0.0)

--- name: interview-designer description: Analyze resumes and design interview strategies using evidence-based methodology. Transforms interview prep from "read resume → ask questions" into "define standard → forensic evidence → future simulation". Combines Geoff Smart's Topgrading, Lou Adler's performance-based hiring, and Daniel Kahneman's bias control. Use when preparing for interviews, creating structured interview guides, or designing questions to validate candidate competencies. --- # Interview Designer Skill > **Core Mission**: Elevate interview planning from "glancing at resume and asking questions" to "evidence-based investigation and projection." > **Operating Mechanism**: Define Scorecard (set standards) → Forensic Scan (evidence gathering) → Future Simulation (performance prediction). > **Prompt Strategy**: This skill uses \<Chain of Thought\>. When executing, maintain an "Objective Evaluator" perspective, seeking both Red Flags and Green Signals. ## 1. Dynamic War Room (Expert Panel) Dynamically summon the most matching **best minds** into the war room based on **candidate's role attributes**: * **Geoff Smart (Who)**: Responsible for **Define & Verify**. * *Principle*: Scorecard First. Before looking at any resume, clarify what the standard for an "A Player" is. * **Lou Adler (Performance-based)**: Responsible for **Predict**. * *Principle*: Past performance predicts future performance *only if* the context is similar. Must design simulations for future scenarios. * **Daniel Kahneman (Bias Control)**: Responsible for **De-bias**. * *Principle*: Beware of "confirmation bias." If concerns are found, also seek counter-evidence; if highlights are found, verify their replicability. * **Domain Expert**: Responsible for **Depth**. ## 2. Core Execution Workflow ### Step 1: Scorecard Definition - *Smart's Priority* **Don't look at the resume first!** Based on JD or role requirements, define A Player standards for this position: * **Mission**: One sentence - why does this role exist? * **Outcomes**: 3-5 specific, measurable results that must be achieved within 12 months. * **Competencies**: Hard/soft skills required to achieve the above outcomes. ### Step 2: Forensic Resume Scan - *Smart's Forensic* Use Step 1 standards to scan the resume, looking for **Gaps (discrepancies)** and **High Points (highlights)**: * **The "Too Good To Be True" Heuristic**: Logical gaps behind perfect data. * **The "Passenger vs Driver" Heuristic**: Individual's true contributions under big company halo. * **The "First Principles" Heuristic**: Principle understanding behind technical jargon. ### Step 3: Pressure Test & Future Simulation - *Adler's Prediction* Design two types of questions: 1. **Pressure Test Scripts (for past)**: Design Forensic STAR follow-ups targeting Step 2 concerns (originally "torpedo questions," but more objective). 2. **Future Simulation (for future)**: Design a specific Performance Problem. * *Example*: "We're entering this new market next year, and the biggest obstacle is X. If you join, how would you analyze this problem in your first week?" ## 3. Question Design Principles 1. **Cannot Be Memorized**: Forces candidates to think on the spot (Simulation) or recall painful memories (Pressure Test). 2. **Forced Trade-offs**: Choose between two "correct" options to test values. 3. **Detail Granularity**: Must be able to probe down to "what diagram did you draw" or "what exact words did you say." ## 4. Output Format Directly call `templates/interview_guide_template.md` to generate the report. **Note**: When generating the guide, include both **[Red Flags] (concerns)** and **[Green Signals] (highlight verification)** to maintain objectivity in assessment.

path: README.md
content: # Interview Designer

**Evidence-Based Interview Planning**

Design interview questions using Scorecard → Forensic Scan → Future Simulation. Avoid confirmation bias and produce structured interview guides (Scorecard + Red Flags/Green Signals + Pressure Tests + Future Scenarios) with Geoff Smart, Lou Adler, and Daniel Kahneman as the default expert panel.

---

## When to Use This Skill

Use this skill when:

- You need to design interview questions for a specific role
- You want to avoid confirmation bias in interview planning
- You're creating a structured interview guide (Scorecard + Questions + Pressure Tests)
- You need to balance past validation with future simulation

---

## Methodology: Scorecard → Forensic → Future

| Phase           | Expert        | What You Define                                                                 |
|-----------------|---------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| **1. Scorecard**| Geoff Smart   | Mission, Outcomes, Competencies — *before* looking at any resume                 |
| **2. Forensic Scan** | Smart + Domain | Resume gaps vs. highlights; "Too Good To Be True" / "Driver vs Passenger" heuristics |
| **3. Future Simulation** | Lou Adler  | Performance problems the candidate would face in your context; week-one scenarios |

---

## What You Get

| Output            | Template                           | Purpose                                              |
|-------------------|------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------|
| **Interview Guide** | `templates/interview_guide_template.md` | Scorecard + Red Flags/Green Signals + Pressure Tests + Future Scenarios |

The guide includes both concerns (**Red Flags**) and highlight verification (**Green Signals**) for objective assessment.

---

## Design Principles

1. **Cannot Be Memorized** — Questions force real-time thinking (simulation) or concrete recall (pressure test).
2. **Forced Trade-offs** — Choose between two "correct" options to surface values, not just knowledge.
3. **Detail Granularity** — Probe to "what exact words did you say" or "what diagram did you draw."

---

## Quick Reference

| Interview Goal      | Question Type       | Example                                                                 |
|---------------------|---------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Validate past claims| Pressure Test (STAR) | "Walk me through the specific metrics you tracked and how you used them." |
| Predict future fit  | Future Simulation   | "Here's our Q1 challenge. How would you approach it in your first week?" |
| Detect blind spots  | Trade-off Question  | "Speed vs. quality — which would you sacrifice here, and why?"         |

---

## Install

**ClawHub (OpenClaw)**:
```bash
npx clawhub@latest install interview-designer
```

**Other (e.g. skills.sh)**:
```bash
npx skills add mikonos/interview-designer
```

Compatible with Cursor, Claude Code, OpenClaw, and other agents that support the skills protocol.


path: references/design_rationale.md
content: # Expert Critique: Interview Designer Skill

> **Simulated Review Panel**:
> *   **Geoff Smart** (Author of "Who", Topgrading methodology)
> *   **Lou Adler** (Founder of Performance-based Hiring)
> *   **Daniel Kahneman** (Nobel Laureate, Behavioral Economics, Decision Noise Research)

---

## 1. Geoff Smart's Perspective: Only "Autopsy," No "Definition"
*   **Comment**: "The starting point of this design is good (Forensic investigation), which aligns well with Topgrading's spirit—digging for truth. **However, you made a fatal error: the sequence is reversed.**"
*   **Critique**: 
    *   The current flow is `Resume Scan` → `Scorecard`. This is **reactive**. You're setting standards based on the candidate's resume, which is the trap of "creating positions around people."
    *   **The A Method's** first step is always **Scorecard**—before looking at any resume, you must define the role's mission (Mission), outcomes (Outcomes), and competencies (Competencies).
    *   **Risk**: Without an independent Scorecard first, your "investigation" becomes "nitpicking," not "validation of fit." You might prove they lied, but not that they can deliver.
*   **Recommendation**: Mandate Step 0 as **"Define Success"**, not **"Scan Resume"**.

## 2. Lou Adler's Perspective: Overemphasis on "Past," Neglecting "Future"
*   **Comment**: "I see you're very enthusiastic about uncovering resume 'inflation.' That's interesting, but **can someone perform the job just because their resume is perfect?**"
*   **Critique**:
    *   Current `Torpedo Questions` mainly expose past lies.
    *   **Performance-based Hiring** believes the best prediction is having candidates solve **future problems**.
    *   **Gap**: Lacks **Project-based Problem Solving**. Beyond asking "how did you coordinate in the past," also ask "this is our new project, if you were responsible, what would you do in the first week?"
*   **Recommendation**: Add **"Future Performance Simulation"** section.

## 3. Daniel Kahneman's Perspective: Breeding Ground for Confirmation Bias
*   **Comment**: "You're calling this skill 'Forensic' and throwing 'torpedoes.' This plants very strong **negative priming** in the interviewer's mind."
*   **Critique**:
    *   Once an interviewer enters the room with "this person might be lying" colored glasses, they'll unconsciously seek evidence to confirm this (Confirmation Bias), while ignoring the candidate's genuine highlights.
    *   This is the source of **Noise**.
*   **Recommendation**: Balance the mindset. Change "Torpedo" to **"Evidence Stress Test"**, and explicitly require seeking **"Green Signals"** simultaneously, not just red flags.

---

## 4. Comprehensive Optimization Recommendations (Action Plan)

1.  **Architecture Adjustment (Re-order)**: 
    *   `Step 1: Define Scorecard` (based on JD/business pain points, independent of resume)
    *   `Step 2: Resume Forensic` (scan resume gaps based on Scorecard)
2.  **Content Enhancement (Add Future Focus)**:
    *   Add `Problem Solving Case` generation logic.
3.  **Tone Correction (Neutrality)**:
    *   Maintain sharpness, but remove "presumption of guilt" undertones. Goal is Truth-seeking, not Witch-hunting.


path: templates/interview_guide_template.md
content: # {Candidate_Name}_Targeted_Interview_Guide

> [!IMPORTANT]
> **Planning Context**: Based on war room simulation with {Expert_List}.
> **Objective**: Verify competency match (Step 1), gather evidence on resume concerns (Step 2), project future performance (Step 3).

---

## 1. Competency Scorecard

*Before looking at the resume, THIS is what success looks like.*

*   **Mission (One-sentence mission)**: ...
*   **Outcomes (12-month must-achieve results)**:
    1.  ...
    2.  ...
*   **Core Competencies**:
    *   **{Competency 1}**: {Description}
    *   **{Competency 2}**: {Description}

---

## 2. Forensic Resume Scan

*Scan resume against Scorecard, looking for Gaps (concerns) and Evidence (matches).*

### 🔴 Red Flags (Concerns/Gaps)
*   **{Concern 1}**: ...
    *   *Expert Challenge*: ...
*   **{Concern 2}**: ...

### 🟢 Green Signals (Highlights/Matches)
*   **{Highlight 1}**: ...
    *   *Evidence*: ...

---

## 3. Interview Battle Scripts

### Part A: Pressure Validation (Past Performance)
*Forensic STAR follow-ups designed for Red Flags.*

**Q1 (targeting {Concern 1})**:
*   **The Setup**: "{Question...}"
*   **The Drill**: "{Follow-up...}"

### Part B: Future Projection (Future Scenario)
*Performance simulations designed for Outcomes.*

**Q2 (targeting Outcome 1)**:
*   **Scenario**: "{Set up a specific challenge highly relevant to future work...}"
*   **Question**: "If this is the situation you face in your first week, how would you handle it?"
*   **Bar Raiser**: "{What would an A Player do?}" vs "{What would a B Player do?}"

---

## 4. Decision Matrix

| Dimension | No Hire (Kill) | HIRE (Pass) |
| :--- | :--- | :--- |
| **Integrity** | ... | ... |
| **Competency Match** | ... | ... |


Security scan verdicts — ClawScan: clean | static analysis: clean | VirusTotal: clean | SkillSpector: clean (LOW)