Interpret What a Reference Actually Told You

When to use it

The prompt

Help me interpret this reference call. I don't want to over-read it or explain it away. WHAT THEY SAID: {{paste your notes, as close to verbatim as you can}} WHO THEY ARE: {{their relationship to the candidate, how long, how recently}} WHO SOURCED THEM: {{the candidate, or me}} THE CONCERN I WAS TESTING: {{what I hoped this call would resolve}} THE ROLE: {{Job Title}}, {{level}}, and what it demands most Give me: 1. What they actually said, separated from what I inferred — quote my notes back to me where I've slipped into interpretation. 2. Where they were specific and where they went vague, and whether the vagueness lines up with the concern I was testing. 3. Praise that's weaker than it sounds, and why: always available, never complained, great culture fit. 4. What a candidate-sourced reference declining to say something does and doesn't mean. 5. The two follow-up questions worth a second call. 6. An honest verdict: whether this resolved my concern, deepened it, or told me nothing. Don't manufacture a signal if it's the last one. Flag anything in my notes that shouldn't factor into the decision at all.

Tip

A reference who won't confirm something specific has usually told you the most useful thing on the call. Note the question they moved past and ask it directly on a second call, rather than guessing at the reason.

How to use it

Paste the prompt into ChatGPT, Claude or whichever assistant you use, then replace every {{bracketed}} part with your own detail. The more specific and messier your input, the better the output — a model given raw notes has more to work with than one given a tidy summary you wrote first.

More Screening prompts

Open the full tool for all 87 prompts, the glossary, and the JD decoder.