Score the senior hire you've already half-decided to make.
The Tool that interrupts the courtship. It makes you name the criteria before you score the candidate, argue the case against the person you like, and run a reference call that produces signal instead of a warm character witness.
Most senior-hire mistakes are made in the first twenty minutes of the first conversation and rationalised for three weeks afterwards. The candidate is impressive, the rapport is good, and from there every new fact gets read as confirmation. The interview stops being an assessment and becomes a courtship. Hiring Decision interrupts that. You define what the role actually needs to succeed, not the job-description version. You score the candidate on evidence, not impression, and where there's no evidence the score is unknown, not assumed. The Tool names the three things a sceptic would say are wrong with this person and makes you answer each one. Then it builds a reference-call script tuned to those specific doubts, designed to make a polite referee accidentally tell you the truth. It will not talk you out of the hire. It makes sure that if you make it, you made it on purpose.
What it actually does.
You're hiring your first Head of Delivery. One strong finalist, ex-big-consultancy, very polished, and you already like them. Hiring Decision makes you define the real criteria first: can they build a function from near-zero (must-have), will a team that's run itself for three years respect them (must-have). You score on evidence and find that every example they gave came from inside a firm where the process already existed, so 'build from zero' scores a 2 and 'respected by the existing team' is an outright unknown. The three doubts surface: they've only operated with scaffolding, this role is the scaffolding. The reference script probes exactly that. Your walk-away threshold: if two referees can't give a real example of them building something from scratch, you make the offer a level lower with a build-it mandate, or you keep looking. Six months later you re-read the brief to check whether the risk you spotted was real.
- ✦Founders making a first senior hire
- ✦Operators where a wrong hire costs months to unwind
- ✦Anyone who can run a good interview but knows a good conversation isn't a good decision
- →hiring-decision.zip — a native Claude Skill. Upload to Settings → Skills in Claude, or unzip to
~/.claude/skills/ - →hiring-decision-skill.md — plain markdown. Works in ChatGPT Custom GPTs, Gemini, Claude Projects, agent system prompts — anywhere
- →A README inside the zip with install steps for Claude, ChatGPT, Gemini, and the API
No subscription · free updates within v1.x
Works as a Claude Skill (.zip) and as a plain .md for ChatGPT, Gemini & every LLM
Delivered to your email within 60 seconds · Secured by Stripe
Price includes UK VAT where applicable
Before you buy.
How is this different from just asking Claude directly?
Ask Claude about a candidate you like and it will help you justify the hire. Hiring Decision does the opposite: it makes you define the must-have criteria before you score anyone, scores on evidence (with 'unknown' where there's no evidence rather than a generous guess), and forces you to answer the three things a sceptic would say are wrong with this person. It then builds a reference-call script aimed at those exact doubts. It's built to resist the courtship, which a blank chat won't do.
Will this work with ChatGPT, Gemini, and other LLMs?
Yes. You get a native Claude Skill (.zip) that auto-invokes in Claude, plus a plain .md for a ChatGPT Custom GPT, a Gemini system prompt, or any LLM. The scoring procedure and reference script travel with the file.
Can I share this with my team?
It's licensed for your own use. The scorecard and reference notes it produces are yours to share with a hiring panel — that's encouraged. To put the Tool itself in the hands of every hiring manager, email hello@authority.md about team licensing.
What if it doesn't work for me?
If the file hasn't been delivered, or is defective or empty, we refund in full — see the refund policy in our terms. It's a structured-judgement tool, not employment-law advice; for anything touching discrimination, contracts, or HR process, take professional advice before acting.