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 <candidate>, in what capacity, and over what dates

did you work together?" Establishes standing and lets you verify title and employment period.

1. Role and scope — "What was their role and what were they responsible for?" Confirms the

candidate's own account of the job.

1. Strengths, with an example — "Where did they have the most impact? Give me a specific example."

Demand a concrete instance, not adjectives.

1. 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.

1. Rehire eligibility — "Would you hire or work with them again?" and, separately, "Is

<candidate> 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: <name>, <title> 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.

1. 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.

1. Keep the two rehire questions separate. Eligibility (policy fact) and personal willingness

(opinion) are different lines with different tags — never merged.

1. 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.

1. 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.

1. 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.

1. 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.