# Mode: interview/debrief — Post-Interview Debrief After a real interview, capture what was asked, assess what landed and what didn't, close gaps before the next round, and update the question bank. --- ## When to Run This Skill - Immediately after a real interview (while memory is fresh) - After a recruiter call that surfaced new information about the process - When the candidate learns the next round format and interviewer --- ## Inputs 1. **Interview debrief from candidate** — what questions were asked, how they answered, what felt strong or weak 2. **Interviewer name and role** — informs next round prediction 3. **Round outcome** (if known) — moved forward / rejected / pending 4. **Next round details** (if known) — format, interviewers, timeline 5. **Question bank** at `interview-prep/question-bank.md` — update with real data 6. **Story bank** at `interview-prep/story-bank.md` — add new stories if surfaced 7. **CV** at `cv.md` + `article-digest.md` (if present) — to ground suggested answers in real experience 8. **Retracted claims** at `interview-prep/retracted-claims.md` (if present) — hard gate; never use a retracted claim in a suggested answer even if the candidate said it in the interview 9. **Role-specific prep file** — append debrief notes --- ## Step 1 — Capture What Was Asked Ask the candidate to list every question they remember, in order if possible. Don't prompt with options — let them recall freely first. For each question captured: - What did they say? - How did the interviewer react (positive signal, neutral, pushed back, moved on quickly)? - Did they feel confident or uncertain? If memory is incomplete, ask targeted prompts: - "Were there any questions that caught you off guard?" - "Was there anything you wished you'd answered differently?" - "Did the interviewer follow up on anything — that usually means they wanted more?" --- ## Step 2 — Honest Assessment Per Question For each question, produce: ```markdown **Q: [question]** - What was said: [summary of their answer] - What landed: [what was good — be specific] - What was missing: [gap — precise technical term, missing result, no reflection, etc.] - Correct/complete answer: [what the full answer should include] - Status: ✅ Strong / 🟡 Solid / 🔴 Gap ``` Be direct. If they missed the core concept the question was testing, say so. If an answer was genuinely strong, say that too. The debrief is the most valuable learning moment — vagueness wastes it. --- ## Step 3 — Update Question Bank For each question debriefed, update `interview-prep/question-bank.md`: - Change status to ✅ / 🟡 / 🔴 based on real performance - Add gap notes from the debrief - Add any new questions that appeared and weren't in the bank yet If the question bank doesn't exist, create it with the questions from this interview as the seed. --- ## Step 4 — Close the Gaps For each 🔴 gap identified: 1. **Explain the correct answer** — clear, concise, with a worked example (code, calculation, diagram) where it helps 2. **Connect to a real story** if possible — "you actually have this in your [existing story from the story bank] — here's how to use it" 3. **Add to role-specific prep file** under a "Gaps to Close Before Round N" section 4. **Add to `interview-prep/interview-prep-guide.md`** (if the candidate maintains one) when it's a reusable principle that applies beyond this role --- ## Step 5 — Extract New Stories Sometimes a real interview surfaces a story the candidate hadn't prepared. If the candidate described an experience they hadn't formalized: > "You mentioned [X] in your answer — that sounds like it could become a proper STAR+R story. Want to build it out now while it's fresh?" If yes, build it out as a STAR+R story (Situation, Task, Action, Result, Reflection) and append it to `interview-prep/story-bank.md`. --- ## Step 6 — Next Round Intelligence If the candidate knows the next round format: 1. **Predict likely questions** based on: - Next interviewer's role (e.g., senior practitioner → depth in the core skill, design; cross-functional peer → collaboration, domain boundaries; executive → strategy, business impact) - What was covered in this round (next round typically goes deeper, not wider) - What the interviewer in this round seemed most interested in Label every prediction `[inferred]` — never present a predicted question as if it were sourced from real candidates or insiders. 2. **Build a priority list** for next round prep — ordered by gap severity and likelihood of being tested 3. **Suggest running** `interview/plan` with the next round details to build a full prep plan --- ## Step 7 — Probability Assessment (Optional) If the candidate asks for an honest read on their chances: Assess based on: - Number and severity of gaps (🔴 on fundamentals = higher risk than 🔴 on advanced topics) - Interviewer signals (gave specific next round details = positive; vague = neutral; short call = risk) - Role fit (years of experience, domain match, location) - Differentiators (things the candidate said that most candidates wouldn't) Be honest. A probability range with clear reasoning is more useful than false confidence. --- ## Step 8 — Save Debrief Append to `interview-prep/{company-slug}-{role-slug}.md`: ```markdown ## Round [N] Debrief — [YYYY-MM-DD] **Interviewer:** [name, role] **Round type:** [screening / technical / design-case-study / behavioral] **Outcome:** [pending / moved forward / rejected] ### Questions Asked [list] ### Gaps Identified [list with correct answers] ### Next Round **Format:** [if known] **Interviewers:** [if known] **Priority prep:** [top 3 topics to close before next round] ### Process Intel (recruiter / HM screens — omit if not applicable) **Comp discussed:** [yes / no — if yes, what was said and what was anchored] **Timeline:** [any dates or deadlines mentioned] **Other candidates:** [if disclosed] **Next steps:** [what the interviewer said happens next and by when] ``` --- ## Step 9 — Write Session Transcript After the debrief, also write a machine-readable session transcript to `interview-prep/sessions/{company-slug}-{role-slug}-{round}-{YYYY-MM-DD}.md`. This is a structured record of the round for downstream analysis modes; the speaker-labelled turns let a consumer read either side without re-inferring who spoke. The full contract lives in `interview-prep/sessions/README.md`. Format: ```markdown --- company: [company] role: [role] round: [screen | hiring-manager | technical | system-design | behavioral | onsite | final] date: YYYY-MM-DD interviewer_role: [role, if known] source: debrief --- ## Q1 **Interviewer:** [question as asked] **Candidate:** [answer as delivered / reconstructed in this debrief] ## Q2 ... ``` Rules for the transcript: - **Map the round type to the enum** above (e.g. recruiter screen → `screen`, HM screen → `hiring-manager`, technical deep-dive → `technical`, design/case-study → `system-design`). - **Tag each answer.** On the line directly above each `**Candidate:**` line, emit `` — lowercase-kebab-case, comma-separated for multi-competency answers (e.g. `system-design`, `people-leadership`, `incident-response`). You already assessed each answer in Step 2, so tag from that assessment rather than re-reading. Tags are free-form; pick the competency the question actually tested. - **Reconstruct the candidate turn faithfully.** Use what the candidate reported saying in Step 1, not an idealized answer. The "correct/complete answer" from Step 2 belongs in the debrief file, never in the transcript — the transcript records what happened. - **`source: debrief`.** - The session file lands in a gitignored directory (real names/companies never enter version control); write it without redacting. --- ## Rules - **Debrief immediately.** Memory of interview details degrades fast — within hours, specific questions and reactions are forgotten. Run this skill the same day. - **Don't soften gaps.** A 🔴 gap that gets called 🟡 out of kindness will show up again in the next round. - **Never put invented claims in the candidate's mouth.** Correct/complete answers may draw on general domain knowledge, but any suggested personal claim or metric must come from what the candidate said, `cv.md`, `article-digest.md`, or the story bank. - **Retracted claims are a hard gate.** If a claim appears in `interview-prep/retracted-claims.md`, never suggest the candidate use it — even if they said it in the real interview. Flag it: "That claim is in your retracted list — it's not defensible under pressure. Here's a version that doesn't depend on it." - **Record new retractions.** If the debrief reveals a claim the candidate used in the real interview that they now agree isn't defensible, offer to append it to `interview-prep/retracted-claims.md`: `**"[claim]"** ([context]). Reason: [one-line reason + correct framing if applicable].` - **Extract vocabulary gaps explicitly.** If the candidate used an imprecise term where a precise one exists, add it to `interview-prep/interview-prep-guide.md` under the vocabulary section (if the candidate maintains one). - **One gap = one fix.** Don't overwhelm with a full study plan for every gap. Prioritize the 1–2 most likely to be tested in the next round. - **Celebrate what worked.** Debrief isn't only about gaps. Name what was strong — it reinforces the right behaviour and builds confidence for the next round.