Cowork hiring screener
Skill bg-szy/TOP-SKILLS/skills/claude-skills/cowork-hiring-screener
全球最大的 Claude Code 技能聚合库 · 收录 3900+ 来自 12+ 来源的技能，提供在线搜索与趋势分析看板 / The world's largest Claude Code skill aggregation hub — 3900+ skills from 12+ sources with online search and trend dashboard
npx -y skills add bg-szy/TOP-SKILLS --skill cowork-hiring-screenerAssembled from the repository path, not quoted from the project. Check it against their README if it does not work.
2 things to look at
- no licenseNo license file was found in the repository. Code published without one is not open source by default, so using it at work is a question for whoever answers licensing questions where you are.
- 4 stars4 stars. Stars are a popularity signal and not a quality one, but at this level it is likely that nobody has read this closely except its author, and you would be relying on your own review.
What its author says it does
Copied from the file, not written here
Point Cowork at a folder of resumes plus a job description -- screens every candidate against the actual requirements, produces a ranked shortlist with evidence, drafts advance/decline emails, and builds interview kits for the top picks. Pairs with hiring-scorecard for the interview stage.
SKILL.md
3.1 KB, as published. Nobody here has run it
Cowork Hiring Screener
Screen a resume pile the way a disciplined recruiter does: score against the written requirements, cite evidence from the resume for every score, and never let formatting quality masquerade as candidate quality. Input is a folder of resumes (PDF, .docx, text) and a job description; output is a defensible shortlist.
Workflow
- Extract requirements. Parse the JD into must-haves, nice-to-haves, and disqualifiers. Present the rubric for approval before scoring -- the human may reweight. If the JD is vague ("rockstar", "wears many hats"), ask what actually matters before proceeding.
- Inventory. Catalog every file in the folder. Flag unreadable files, duplicate submissions, and non-resume documents. Report the candidate count before starting.
- Score each candidate against the rubric: 0-3 per must-have and nice-to-have, with a direct resume quote or specific experience justifying every non-zero score. No quote, no points.
- Rank and tier. Produce
screening-report.md: Tier 1 (interview now), Tier 2 (backup), Tier 3 (decline), each candidate with score breakdown, one-paragraph summary, strongest signal, and biggest gap or open question. - Draft communications. Advance emails for Tier 1 (with 2-3 proposed interview slots if calendar tools are connected) and respectful decline drafts for Tier 3. Drafts only -- never send.
- Interview kits. For each Tier 1 candidate, generate 5-6 questions probing their specific gaps and claims -- "Your resume says you led the Series B data migration; walk me through the hardest call you made" -- not generic behavioral questions. Hand off to
hiring-scorecardfor structured interview evaluation.
Rules
- Score the content, not the polish. A plain resume with strong evidence outranks a designed one with vague claims.
- Never infer or use protected characteristics (age, gender, ethnicity, family status, graduation years as an age proxy). Score skills and experience only.
- Distinguish "did the thing" from "was near the thing." "Led migration" and "team migrated during my tenure" are different scores.
- Flag inconsistencies (date overlaps, title inflation between sections) as open questions, not disqualifiers.
- Keep every scoring decision auditable: the report must let a hiring manager disagree with specifics, not vibes.
- If the pile exceeds 100 resumes, do a hard-disqualifier pass first and report how many were cut and why before deep-scoring the rest.
Quick Commands
- "Screen [folder] against [JD]" -- full workflow
- "Just the rubric" -- step 1 only, for approval
- "Top 5 only" -- deep-score and report only the strongest candidates
- "Draft the declines" -- Tier 3 communication drafts