Reference Check Script Skill

A reference check fails when it's a formality — you call, they say "great to work with," you tick the box. This skill writes a call that actually de-risks the hire: questions that make it safe and easy for a referee to be honest, follow-ups that open the gap between polite and true, and a rubric that turns what you hear into a defensible signal.

Working from a brief

Given the role and what you need to validate, write the full script — tailor the questions to the specific concerns (the shaky interview signal, the seniority stretch, the manager-vs-IC question). Default to a ~20–25 minute call structure.

Required Inputs

Ask for (if not provided, else infer and label the assumption):

• Role and level, and the 1–3 things to validate or de-risk (the open questions from interviews)
• Referee relationship to the candidate (former manager / peer / report / client)
• Reference type — candidate-provided or back-channel (changes how candid you probe)

Output Format

Framing (how to open)

A 2–3 sentence opener that sets candor: confidential, no scripted "sales pitch" needed, you're calibrating not gatekeeping. The single most important move — referees mirror the tone you set.

Question set (in order)

Grouped, with the intent of each noted:

1. Relationship & context — how they worked together, for how long, on what.
2. Scope & performance — what the candidate actually owned; where they ranked among peers.
3. Strengths — with a concrete example ("tell me about a time…").
4. Growth areas — asked as _"where did they most need to grow / what coaching helped?"_ (not "weaknesses").
5. Working style — how they handle conflict, feedback, ambiguity, pressure.
6. The rehire question — _"Would you hire them again? For what kind of role?"_ — and listen to the hesitation.

Probing follow-ups

The second question that opens the gap: "Can you give me an example?" · "How did that compare to others at that level?" · "What would their harshest fair critic say?" · silence (let them fill it).

Scoring rubric

| Signal | 🟢 Green | 🟡 Yellow | 🔴 Red | |---|---|---|---| | Specificity | concrete examples | generic praise | evasive / can't recall | | Rehire | enthusiastic, unprompted | qualified | hesitation or no | | Growth honesty | candid, coachable | vague | defensive / dodged |

Plus a one-line overall read and any follow-up to run (e.g. a back-channel if listed refs are all glowing-but-generic).

Legal & fairness guardrails

Ask about job performance only. Do not ask about age, health/disability, family/pregnancy, religion, national origin, or other protected characteristics. Keep it consistent across candidates so it's comparable and defensible.

Quality Checks

• ] The opener explicitly invites candor (not a box-tick)
• ] Questions are open and non-leading — no "they were a great team player, right?"
• ] At least one question forces a concrete example and one comparative ranking
• ] The rehire question is included and its hesitation is scored, not just its answer
• ] The rubric converts what's heard into 🟢🟡🔴 with an overall read
• ] Protected-class questions are explicitly excluded; the script is consistent across candidates

Anti-Patterns

• Leading questions that hand the referee the answer
• Accepting "they were great" without a follow-up for a specific example
• Only calling candidate-selected references (all curated to be positive)
• Treating the call as confirmation, not investigation
• Asking anything about protected characteristics
• No rubric — a vibe instead of a comparable, documented signal