Work Out Which Sourcing Channels Actually Worked
When to use it
Decide where next quarter's sourcing time goes, using hires rather than volume.
The prompt
Help me work out which of my sourcing channels are worth continuing. BY CHANNEL, OVER {{period}}: {{channel name, candidates sourced, replies, screens, onsites, offers, hires, and rough cost or hours}} WHERE MOST OF MY TIME GOES: {{...}} WHAT I'M BEING ASKED TO JUSTIFY: {{a tool renewal, agency spend, a job board contract}} WHAT THIS COVERS: {{one req, or a whole function}} Give me: 1. Whether these numbers are large enough to conclude anything per channel, said before any conclusion. Most channel comparisons are three hires being read as a trend. 2. Each channel ranked by hires and separately by cost per hire, with the difference between the two rankings explained. 3. Where a channel looks bad only because it's being judged at the wrong stage — high volume and low quality is a different problem from low volume and high quality. 4. Which channel is quietly subsidised by another: referrals from people originally sourced elsewhere, inbound driven by outbound. 5. What to stop, what to keep, and the one thing worth testing next quarter. 6. What I'd need to start tracking to answer this properly next time. Say so when the honest answer is that I can't tell yet.
Tip
Rank by hires, never by candidates sourced. The channel with the biggest top of funnel is usually the one absorbing most of your week for the fewest offers.
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 Reporting & Metrics prompts
Open the full tool for all 87 prompts, the glossary, and the JD decoder.