wehub-resource-sync
201 lines
9.4 KiB
Markdown
201 lines
9.4 KiB
Markdown
# 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]
|
||
<!-- competency: tag[, tag...] -->
|
||
**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 `<!-- competency: tag[, tag...] -->` — 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.
|