CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

testland/hiring-rubric-author

Build-an-X workflow that produces a per-role QA hiring rubric - takes a role description (manual QA / SDET / automation engineer / test lead / quality manager) plus the question bank from `interview-question-author` and emits a competency-anchored scoring rubric with 4-level behavioral anchors (no-hire / borderline / hire / strong-hire) per competency. This produces the scoring scaffold only - not the questions themselves, and not the gold-standard model answers that demonstrate each score level. Use after the question bank exists and before the first interview is scheduled - the rubric is what brings interviewer scoring into agreement.

75

Quality

94%

Does it follow best practices?

Run evals on this skill

Adds up to 20 points to the overall score

View guide

SecuritybySnyk

Passed

No findings from the security scan

Overview
Quality
Evals
Security
Files

Quality

Content

85%

Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.

A well-constructed instruction skill: actionable templates, a clearly sequenced workflow with validation checkpoints, and clean organization. The only real weakness is conciseness — time-sensitive references and some motivational prose could be tightened or relocated.

Suggestions

Move or remove time-sensitive specifics from the References section (e.g. 'PractiTest 2026 State of Testing Report', 'ISTQB Foundation Level v4.0'); if kept, place them in a clearly labeled 'deprecated/old patterns' section so they do not penalize conciseness.

Tighten the Overview's motivational prose about structured-interviewing literature to the load-bearing design principle ('anchors describe what the candidate said/did, not what the interviewer felt') rather than restating the case for anchored rubrics.

The illustrative level-3 anchor quote in the Overview ('candidate explains the AAA pattern with a worked example...') duplicates the Step 3 template; consider dropping it to reduce redundancy.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body is mostly action-dense, but the References section carries time-sensitive specifics — 'PractiTest 2026 State of Testing Report' and 'ISTQB Foundation Level v4.0' — that are not placed in a deprecated/old-patterns section, which the guideline says should penalize conciseness, and the Overview motivational prose ('the literature on structured interviewing is clear...') could be tightened.

2 / 3

Actionability

Provides concrete, copy-paste-ready guidance throughout: an input table, per-role competency lists, a full worked 4-level anchor template (Step 3), a summary-rule table (Step 4), and an output/hand-off template (Step 5), plus an anti-patterns table with fixes.

3 / 3

Workflow Clarity

A clearly sequenced Step 1-5 process with an inline validation checkpoint in Step 1 (provisional flag that must be re-run once the bank exists) and validation touches in the hand-off (calibration before the first candidate, lock at round start); this is document authoring, so the destructive/batch feedback-loop cap does not apply.

3 / 3

Progressive Disclosure

No bundle files exist, so scoring rests on organization: the body is split into clearly navigable sections and the external references (ISTQB, Wikipedia, sibling skills) are clearly signaled one level deep, with no nested-reference chains.

3 / 3

Total

11

/

12

Passed

Description

100%

Based on the skill's description, can an agent find and select it at the right time? Clear, specific descriptions lead to better discovery.

A strong, specific description that names concrete actions, enumerates roles and score levels, gives an explicit use-trigger, and disambiguates from sibling skills. It uses imperative voice consistent with the good examples, so no voice penalty applies.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

Lists multiple concrete actions — 'produces a per-role QA hiring rubric', 'takes a role description...plus the question bank', 'emits a competency-anchored scoring rubric with 4-level behavioral anchors' — with enumerated roles and score levels, matching the multi-specific-action anchor rather than the partial anchor 2.

3 / 3

Completeness

Explicitly answers both what ('produces...emits a competency-anchored scoring rubric') and when ('Use after the question bank exists and before the first interview is scheduled'), satisfying the explicit-trigger requirement rather than leaving when implied.

3 / 3

Trigger Term Quality

Covers natural terms a hiring manager would actually say — 'hiring rubric', 'QA', 'scoring rubric', 'question bank', 'interview', 'role description' — giving good coverage rather than just a few relevant keywords.

3 / 3

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

Claims a clear QA-hiring niche and explicitly disambiguates from siblings — 'not the questions themselves' and 'not the gold-standard model answers' — making wrong-skill triggering unlikely.

3 / 3

Total

12

/

12

Passed

Validation

100%

Checks the skill against the spec for correct structure and formatting. All validation checks must pass before discovery and implementation can be scored.

Validation16 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

No warnings or errors.

Reviewed

Table of Contents