--- name: reference-check-guide source: https://app.decimal.ai/s/reference-check-guide@1/SKILL.md source_sha256: 68ed97315a20 --- # Reference-check guide Structure a reference call into a fixed question set and a note format that keeps **verified fact separate from the reference's opinion**. Handed "help me do a reference check", base models produce a friendly list of open-ended questions and then write the result up as one flattering narrative — verified employment dates blended with the reference's personal praise, the areas-for-growth question softened away, and the single most decision-relevant question (would you rehire them) left off entirely. This guide forces the full set, asked in order, and a note that labels each answer. ## When to use / when NOT - **Use** when preparing questions for a reference call, or turning the reference's answers into notes. - **Do NOT use** for screening a resume against a bar (that is `candidate-screening`), drafting the interview questions themselves, or writing up the interviewer's own scorecard (`interview-scorecard-format`). This skill is about a *third party* vouching for the candidate. ## The standard question set (ask all five, in order) 1. **Relationship and dates** — "How do you know , in what capacity, and over what dates did you work together?" Establishes standing and lets you verify title and employment period. 2. **Role and scope** — "What was their role and what were they responsible for?" Confirms the candidate's own account of the job. 3. **Strengths, with an example** — "Where did they have the most impact? Give me a specific example." Demand a concrete instance, not adjectives. 4. **Areas for growth** — "Where did they need the most support, or what would you have them work on?" Never skip this or let the reference wave it off — a reference with *no* growth area is a signal the answer is not candid, and you note that. 5. **Rehire eligibility** — "Would you hire or work with them again?" and, separately, "Is eligible for rehire under your company's policy?" These are two different questions (see below). This is the highest-signal question and the one base write-ups most often omit. ## Fact vs opinion — the core discipline Tag every captured answer as one of two kinds. Never blend them into one sentence. - **[Verified]** — a checkable fact: employment dates, title, reporting line, whether the person was a direct manager, and **company rehire-eligibility policy** (many firms will confirm only eligible/not-eligible). These can be corroborated against records or a second source. - **[Opinion]** — the reference's judgment: their impressions, praise, concerns, and their *personal* willingness to rehire. Valuable, but it is one person's view, not established fact. The rehire question splits across both kinds: - "Is the candidate **eligible** for rehire?" → **[Verified]** — a policy fact about the person. - "Would **you** personally rehire them?" → **[Opinion]** — the reference's own call. Capturing "eligible for rehire: yes [Verified]" and "would personally rehire: enthusiastically [Opinion]" as two labeled lines is the whole point. Collapsing them into "great, would definitely rehire" throws away which part you can rely on. ## Note format ``` Reference: , at <company> Relationship: <manager | peer | report | client>, <dates> [Verified: title/dates confirmed] Candidate's stated role: <role> — confirmed / discrepancy: <note> [Verified] Strengths: <specific example the reference gave> [Opinion] Areas for growth: <what they said, or "declined / none offered"> [Opinion] Rehire — eligible under policy: <yes | no | would not confirm> [Verified] Rehire — reference would personally: <yes | no | hesitant> [Opinion] Flags: <discrepancy with candidate's account, evasiveness, or "none"> ``` ## Rules 1. **Ask all five questions.** Never drop one because the call is going well. The rehire and areas-for-growth questions are the two most likely to be skipped and the two most informative. 2. **Tag every answer [Verified] or [Opinion].** No untagged line in the write-up. If you cannot tell which it is, it is [Opinion] until corroborated. 3. **Keep the two rehire questions separate.** Eligibility (policy fact) and personal willingness (opinion) are different lines with different tags — never merged. 4. **Demand a concrete example for strengths.** "Strong engineer" is not an answer; "rebuilt the billing pipeline in a quarter" is. Record the example, not the adjective. 5. **A refused or empty growth answer is data.** Note "declined to name one" rather than writing "no weaknesses" — the absence is itself a mild flag, not a clean bill. 6. **Flag discrepancies, do not smooth them.** If the reference's dates or title contradict the candidate's résumé, record it under Flags. Do not quietly adopt one version. 7. **Attribute, never launder opinion into fact.** "She was the best on the team" stays [Opinion] attributed to the reference; it never becomes "the candidate was the top performer". ## Worked example Raw call (input): > That's Dana — I was her manager on the platform team, she was there from early 2021 til she left > last summer, staff engineer. Honestly the best hire I made. She owned the whole billing rewrite. > Weakness? Hmm, she can be impatient with slower folks. Would I take her back tomorrow? In a > heartbeat — and yeah she's rehire-eligible, no issues on file. **BEFORE (base default — one narrative, fact and opinion blended, no tags):** > Dana was a staff engineer and her former manager Sam gave her a glowing reference. She was the > best hire he made, owned the billing rewrite, and he would absolutely rehire her. Minor note that > she can be impatient. Strong reference overall. **AFTER (this guide):** ``` Reference: Sam, former manager (platform team) Relationship: direct manager, early 2021 – summer 2024 [Verified: dates/title confirmed] Candidate's stated role: Staff Engineer — confirmed [Verified] Strengths: owned the billing-system rewrite end to end [Opinion] Areas for growth: "impatient with slower colleagues" [Opinion] Rehire — eligible under policy: yes, nothing on file [Verified] Rehire — reference would personally: yes, without hesitation [Opinion] Flags: none — dates and title match résumé ``` ## Edge cases - **HR-only reference (policy shop).** Some companies confirm dates, title, and eligibility and nothing else. Record those [Verified] lines and mark the opinion questions "would not comment" — do not press or invent color. - **Reference declines to name a growth area.** Note "declined / none offered [Opinion]" under areas for growth; do not translate the refusal into "no weaknesses [Verified]". - **Dates or title conflict with the résumé.** Keep both, tag the reference's version [Verified from reference], and raise it under Flags rather than overwriting the candidate's account. - **Peer, not manager.** Still valid — capture the relationship as "peer" so the reader weights the rehire-eligibility answer accordingly (a peer often cannot speak to formal eligibility; mark it "not able to confirm"). - **Glowing with zero specifics.** If the reference offers only praise and no concrete example or growth area, record that pattern under Flags — uniformly positive-but-vague is a soft signal. ## Do / Don't - **Always** run all five questions, in order, including rehire eligibility. - **Always** tag each captured answer [Verified] or [Opinion]. - **Always** keep policy-eligibility and personal-willingness as two separate rehire lines. - **Never** merge verified dates/title with the reference's praise into one unlabeled sentence. - **Never** drop the areas-for-growth or rehire question, or record a refusal as a clean result. - **Never** promote an attributed opinion into a stated fact about the candidate. ## Common mistakes (the base's wrong defaults) - One flowing "great reference" paragraph with verified facts and personal praise indistinguishable. - Omitting the rehire-eligibility question, or asking only "would you rehire" and losing the policy fact. - Skipping areas-for-growth, or writing "no weaknesses" when the reference simply declined to name one. - Recording "strong engineer" with no concrete example behind it. - Silently adopting the reference's dates/title over the résumé instead of flagging the discrepancy.