> ## Content Index > Fetch the complete content index at: https://www.mindovermoney.ai/llms.txt > Use this file to discover other available public pages before exploring further. # Steal My Prompt Vol. 47: The Hiring Debrief Compiler - URL: https://www.mindovermoney.ai/prompt-library/ai-prompt-to-compile-a-hiring-debrief/ - Published: 2026-08-18T11:00:35.000Z - Updated: 2026-08-18T11:00:34.000Z - Description: A two-pass prompt turns a hiring panel's scattered debrief into evidence tied to criteria committed before the loop started, then pressure-tests the resulting decision before it gets made. - Author: Santosh Savel - Tags: #prompt-library [The loop is finished.](https://www.mindovermoney.ai/prompt-library/ai-prompt-to-build-a-hiring-scorecard/) Two or three colleagues sat in on the final round, the debrief ran its thirty minutes, everyone said something, and the room seemed to agree. Now the decision is yours, and what you are holding is a memory of a conversation. In the room, a debrief feels productive. People contribute, the most confident voice sets the frame, and the group converges before anyone checks what it converged on. By the time you sit down to decide, the evidence has thinned into impressions. Strong presence. Good culture fit. Neither one attaches to anything you decided mattered before the candidate walked in. I ran a backfill hire exactly this way. Two colleagues helped with final interviews and we debriefed in a meeting. What I should have done was take the transcript, blend it with my own notes, and run all of it through something structured before making the call. Instead I did that work in my head. The decision held up. The method does not survive a busier week, and I would rather have the system in place before the next opening. The Hiring Debrief Compiler runs two passes. The first compiles what was actually said and anchors every piece of it to a criterion you committed to before the loop started. The second turns around and pressure-tests you. It does not replace your judgment, it interrogates it. ## From User to Builder **Get AI Workflows Like This Every Tuesday.* Subscribe for Free Email sent! Check your inbox to complete your signup. Neural Gains Weekly. No Spam. Unsubscribe Anytime. ##### **What You Can Use This For** - A final round where the panel agreed in the room and you cannot reconstruct what they agreed on - A debrief recording or transcript sitting in your files that you have not turned into anything useful - Two strong finalists where the panel split, and the split is now yours to weigh - A clinical or operations hire where two interviewers assessed the same criterion and came back with opposite reads - A panel that included first-time interviewers, whose notes read nothing like each other - The written decision rationale you owe your recruiter and the candidate, whichever way it goes ##### **How to Use It** 1. Open Claude. The prompt also works in ChatGPT, Microsoft Copilot, and Gemini on free tiers. 2. For a senior or high-stakes hire, turn on the reasoning option. "Extended thinking" in Claude, the reasoning model in ChatGPT, "Think Deeper" in Copilot, or "Deep Think" in Gemini. It holds more of the transcript in view at once and catches the criterion nobody tested. 3. Gather your inputs. The debrief transcript or your notes from the meeting, your own interview notes, and your role scorecard if you have one. If you have nothing written down, paste what you have and the prompt will ask for your three must-haves. 4. Run Pass 1 and read the unattached section first. Praise like "great presence" lands there when it maps to no criterion, which tells you what the panel was actually responding to. 5. Give the prompt your leaning and run Pass 2\. Answer it honestly. If you cannot name the evidence behind your lean, that is the finding. Pro tip. Record the debrief with everyone's consent and feed the transcript rather than your memory of it. Your notes capture what you thought was important while people were talking. The transcript captures what they actually said, including the thing you dismissed in the moment. ##### **The Prompt** *You are an experienced hiring partner who has sat through hundreds of debriefs and watched good panels talk themselves into the wrong candidate. You know the failure mode. Feedback arrives as conclusions instead of evidence, the most confident voice anchors everyone else, and criteria nobody wrote down get invented after the fact to justify a preference. Your job today is to compile what my panel actually said, then pressure-test what I am about to do with it.* *My open role: \[ROLE TITLE AND LEVEL\]* *My rubric, meaning the scorecard or must-have criteria I committed to before the loop: \[PASTE IT HERE, OR WRITE "NONE"\]* *The panel debrief, meaning the meeting transcript, my notes from the debrief, or the written feedback each interviewer submitted: \[PASTE IT HERE\]* *My own interview notes: \[PASTE THEM HERE, OR WRITE "NONE"\]* *Before compiling anything, read everything I have given you. Ask me only for what you genuinely cannot infer from it, one question at a time, and no more than three questions total. If I wrote "NONE" for the rubric, your first question is what three must-haves I would have written before the loop. If what I gave you is already complete, ask nothing and go straight to Pass 1.* *PASS 1\. COMPILE.* *Produce a table with four columns: CRITERION | WHAT INTERVIEWERS OBSERVED | WHO SAID IT | CONVERGENT, SPLIT, OR UNTESTED. One row per criterion in my rubric, must-haves at the top.* *In the observed column, write what the candidate actually said or did, not what the interviewer concluded. "Walked through a migration she led and named two things she would do differently" is an observation. "Strong technical depth" is a conclusion. Where you only have a conclusion, write it and mark it CONCLUSION ONLY.* *Then produce three short sections.* *Convergent signal. Where two or more interviewers independently landed on the same criterion and agreed. Name the criterion and the evidence underneath it.* *Live dissent. Where interviewers disagreed. Do not resolve it, do not average it, and do not decide who is right. State what each person saw, then name the specific question their disagreement is really about.* *Unattached. Every piece of praise or criticism that maps to no criterion in my rubric. List it plainly and label it impression rather than evidence. If a criterion in my rubric went untested by anyone, say so here.* *Stop after Pass 1 and wait. Recommend nothing yet.* *PASS 2\. PRESSURE-TEST ME.* *When I give you my current leaning, do four things.* *First, name which criteria my leaning actually rests on, using only the compiled evidence.* *Second, name where I am weighting a criterion heavily on thin evidence, or treating an unattached impression as if it were a criterion.* *Third, tell me what would have to be true for the opposite decision to be the right one, and argue that case as well as it can be argued.* *Fourth, give me the one question I should still get answered and who should answer it, whether that is a reference, a follow-up conversation, or someone who sat on the panel.* *Then write my decision rationale in under 200 words, tied to named criteria and specific evidence, in language I could share with my recruiter and adapt for the candidate either way.* *Rules. Do not invent evidence, agreement, or attribution that is not in what I gave you. Do not soften dissent to make my decision easier. Where the panel never covered a criterion, say so rather than filling the gap. Do not tell me who to hire; tell me what my reasoning is resting on.* \[Button: Get a New Prompt Every Tuesday\] ##### **Transparency and Notes** - Built in Claude for this volume. It requires no paid features and runs in ChatGPT, Copilot, and Gemini free tiers. - Part 2 of a two-part hiring series. Vol 46, The Hiring Manager's Interview, builds the scorecard this prompt compiles against. Running Part 1 first makes Part 2 sharper, and this works without it. - Recording a debrief requires everyone's consent, and in some places that is a legal requirement rather than a courtesy. Ask before you record. - Strip candidate names, compensation figures, and anything touching age, health, family status, or other protected characteristics before pasting. The prompt only needs the evidence. - This is a thinking aid for a decision you own. It is not HR or legal guidance, and your recruiting partner should see your final rationale.