Productivity

applicant-screening

claude-office-skills/skills · updated Apr 8, 2026

$npx skills add https://github.com/claude-office-skills/skills --skill applicant-screening
summary

Screen job applications against role requirements to identify top candidates efficiently.

skill.md

Applicant Screening

Screen job applications against role requirements to identify top candidates efficiently.

Overview

This skill helps you:

  • Evaluate resumes against job requirements
  • Score candidates consistently
  • Identify must-have vs. nice-to-have qualifications
  • Flag potential concerns
  • Rank applicants for interviews

How to Use

Single Candidate

"Screen this resume against our [Job Title] requirements"
"Evaluate this application for the [Position] role"

Batch Screening

"Screen these 10 applications for the Senior Developer position"
"Rank these candidates based on our requirements"

With Criteria

"Screen for: 5+ years Python, AWS experience required, ML nice-to-have"

Screening Framework

Requirements Matrix

## Job Requirements: [Position]

### Must-Have (Required)
| Requirement | Weight | Criteria |
|-------------|--------|----------|
| [Skill 1] | 20% | [X] years experience |
| [Skill 2] | 15% | [Certification/level] |
| [Education] | 10% | [Degree type] |
| [Experience] | 25% | [Industry/role type] |

### Nice-to-Have (Preferred)
| Requirement | Bonus | Criteria |
|-------------|-------|----------|
| [Skill 3] | +5pts | [Description] |
| [Skill 4] | +5pts | [Description] |
| [Trait] | +3pts | [Indicator] |

### Disqualifiers
- [ ] No work authorization
- [ ] Below minimum experience
- [ ] Missing required certification
- [ ] Salary expectation mismatch

Output Formats

Individual Screening Report

# Candidate Screening: [Name]

## Quick Summary
| Attribute | Value |
|-----------|-------|
| **Position** | [Job Title] |
| **Score** | [X]/100 |
| **Recommendation** | 🟢 Interview / 🟡 Maybe / 🔴 Pass |

## Candidate Profile
- **Name**: [Full Name]
- **Location**: [City, State]
- **Current Role**: [Title] at [Company]
- **Total Experience**: [X] years
- **Education**: [Degree, School]

## Requirements Match

### Must-Have Requirements
| Requirement | Met? | Evidence | Score |
|-------------|------|----------|-------|
| [5+ years Python] || 7 years at 2 companies | 20/20 |
| [AWS experience] || AWS Certified, 3 years | 15/15 |
| [Bachelor's CS] || BS Computer Science, MIT | 10/10 |
| [Team lead exp] | ⚠️ | Led 2-person team | 5/10 |

**Must-Have Score**: [X]/[Total]

### Nice-to-Have
| Requirement | Met? | Evidence | Bonus |
|-------------|------|----------|-------|
| [ML experience] || Built recommendation system | +5 |
| [Startup exp] || 2 early-stage startups | +5 |
| [Open source] || Not mentioned | 0 |

**Nice-to-Have Bonus**: +[X] points

## Strengths 💪
1. [Strength 1 with evidence]
2. [Strength 2 with evidence]
3. [Strength 3 with evidence]

## Concerns ⚠️
1. [Concern 1 - question to ask in interview]
2. [Concern 2 - what to verify]

## Red Flags 🚩
- [If any - employment gaps, inconsistencies, etc.]

## Interview Questions
Based on this candidate's profile, consider asking:
1. [Question about specific experience]
2. [Question about concern area]
3. [Question about growth potential]

## Overall Assessment
[2-3 sentence summary of fit]

**Final Score**: [X]/100
**Recommendation**: [Interview / Phone Screen / Pass]
**Priority**: [High / Medium / Low]

Batch Ranking Report

# Applicant Ranking: [Position]

**Date**: [Date]
**Total Applications**: [X]
**Reviewed**: [X]

## Summary
| Category | Count | % |
|----------|-------|---|
| 🟢 Strong Interview | [X] | [%] |
| 🟡 Phone Screen | [X] | [%] |
| 🔵 Maybe/Hold | [X] | [%] |
| 🔴 Not a Fit | [X] | [%] |

## Top Candidates

### 🥇 Tier 1: Strong Interview (Score 80+)

| Rank | Name | Score | Key Strengths | Concerns |
|------|------|-------|---------------|----------|
| 1 | [Name] | 92 | [Strengths] | [Concerns] |
| 2 | [Name] | 88 | [Strengths] | [Concerns] |
| 3 | [Name] | 85 | [Strengths] | [Concerns] |

### 🥈 Tier 2: Phone Screen (Score 65-79)

| Rank | Name | Score | Key Strengths | Gap to Address |
|------|------|-------|---------------|----------------|
| 4 | [Name] | 75 | [Strengths] | [Gap] |
| 5 | [Name] | 72 | [Strengths] | [Gap] |

### 🥉 Tier 3: Maybe/Hold (Score 50-64)

| Name | Score | Reason for Hold |
|------|-------|-----------------|
| [Name] | 58 | [Reason] |

### ❌ Not Proceeding (Score <50)

| Name | Score | Primary Reason |
|------|-------|----------------|
| [Name] | 45 | Missing required [X] |
| [Name] | 38 | Below minimum experience |

## Insights

### Applicant Pool Quality
[Assessment of overall pool quality]

### Common Strengths
- [Frequently seen strength]
- [Frequently seen strength]

### Common Gaps
- [What most candidates lack]
- [Skill shortage in pool]

### Recommendations
1. [Action for top candidates]
2. [Suggestion for sourcing if pool weak]

Scoring Rubric

Experience Scoring

Years Entry Mid Senior Lead
0-1 10/10 3/10 0/10 0/10
2-3 8/10 7/10 3/10 0/10
4-5 5/10 10/10 7/10 3/10
6-8 3/10 8/10 10/10 7/10
9+ 0/10 5/10 10/10 10/10

Education Scoring

Level Technical Role Non-Technical
PhD 10/10 8/10
Master's 9/10 9/10
Bachelor's 8/10 10/10
Associate's 5/10 7/10
Bootcamp 6/10 N/A
Self-taught 4/10 N/A

Best Practices

Fair Screening

  • Focus on job-related criteria only
  • Ignore protected characteristics
  • Use consistent scoring
  • Document decisions
  • Consider diverse backgrounds

Bias Awareness

  • Name/gender bias: Focus on qualifications
  • Affinity bias: Diverse interview panels
  • Confirmation bias: Score before gut feeling
  • Halo effect: Evaluate each criterion separately

Legal Considerations

  • Only use job-relevant criteria
  • Apply standards consistently
  • Keep screening records
  • Have HR review process
  • Consider adverse impact

Limitations

  • Cannot verify employment history
  • May miss context from non-traditional backgrounds
  • Scoring is guidance, not absolute
  • Cannot assess cultural fit or soft skills fully
  • Human judgment essential for final decisions
general reviews

Ratings

4.510 reviews
  • Shikha Mishra· Oct 10, 2024

    applicant-screening is among the better-maintained entries we tried; worth keeping pinned for repeat workflows.

  • Piyush G· Sep 9, 2024

    Keeps context tight: applicant-screening is the kind of skill you can hand to a new teammate without a long onboarding doc.

  • Chaitanya Patil· Aug 8, 2024

    Registry listing for applicant-screening matched our evaluation — installs cleanly and behaves as described in the markdown.

  • Sakshi Patil· Jul 7, 2024

    applicant-screening reduced setup friction for our internal harness; good balance of opinion and flexibility.

  • Ganesh Mohane· Jun 6, 2024

    I recommend applicant-screening for anyone iterating fast on agent tooling; clear intent and a small, reviewable surface area.

  • Oshnikdeep· May 5, 2024

    Useful defaults in applicant-screening — fewer surprises than typical one-off scripts, and it plays nicely with `npx skills` flows.

  • Dhruvi Jain· Apr 4, 2024

    applicant-screening has been reliable in day-to-day use. Documentation quality is above average for community skills.

  • Rahul Santra· Mar 3, 2024

    Solid pick for teams standardizing on skills: applicant-screening is focused, and the summary matches what you get after install.

  • Pratham Ware· Feb 2, 2024

    We added applicant-screening from the explainx registry; install was straightforward and the SKILL.md answered most questions upfront.

  • Yash Thakker· Jan 1, 2024

    applicant-screening fits our agent workflows well — practical, well scoped, and easy to wire into existing repos.