Check Your Screening Decisions for Consistency

When to use it

The prompt

Review my recent screening decisions for a {{Job Title}} role and tell me where I applied the bar unevenly. THE MUST-HAVES I SCREENED AGAINST: {{list}} MY DECISIONS: {{for each candidate: an ID (no names), advance or reject, and the reason I wrote at the time}} EVIDENCE FROM EACH RESUME: {{relevant skills and experience only, with no names, photos, ages or other personal details}} Give me: 1. Cases where two candidates with similar evidence got different decisions, and what seems to have tipped them. 2. Rejection reasons that aren't on my must-have list, such as "not a culture fit", "too many job changes" or "only services experience", and how often each appears. 3. Reasons that may be standing in for something else, such as school, company prestige or a career gap, and why they might be filtering out capable people. 4. The rejections most worth a second look, ranked by how strong the evidence was against my must-haves. 5. Two or three changes to how I write screening notes, so the next batch is easier to compare. Work only from the skills and evidence I've given. Don't infer anyone's gender, age, background or other personal characteristics, and tell me if my notes include any.

Tip

Remove names and photos before you paste anything in. The point is to see the pattern in your own reasons, because the reasons are the part you can change.

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 Diversity & Inclusion prompts

Open the full tool for all 93 prompts, the glossary, and the JD decoder.