Hiring coordinator
Samir Iqbal
People operations
Problem
Samir Iqbal coordinates hiring for a mid-size team and sits in more interviews than he leads. Interviewers leave notes in different formats: some write a novel, some write "good vibe," and some write nothing until a week later. When a manager asks why one candidate moved forward, Samir cannot reconstruct the evidence. He must not feed Gemini resumes full of personal data or ask it to rank people. He wants a shared note structure and a way to turn each interviewer's observations into job-related evidence, with the hiring manager still making the decision.
Gemini strategy
Samir asks Gemini to design a note template tied to the job's real criteria: evidence observed, question asked, and what is still unknown. After interviews, he pastes only de-identified notes he is allowed to process under company policy, with names removed. The model groups comments by criterion and flags vague lines such as "culture fit" that lack a behavior. It does not score candidates or recommend a hire. Samir's verification step is to send the grouped notes back to the interviewer for correction before the debrief. The hiring manager decides. Legal or policy questions go to his people team, not the chatbot.
Prompts
Create an evidence note template
You are helping a hiring coordinator standardize interview notes. I will paste the job criteria we already use. Do not invent criteria and do not ask for personal data. Create a note template with one section per criterion. Under each, include: question asked, evidence observed, and what is still unknown. Add a reminder that "gut feel" must be rewritten as a job-related behavior or deleted. Do not include a score, a rank, or a hire recommendation. Use plain language an interviewer can complete in ten minutes. End with two bad example notes and why they fail.
Group de-identified notes by criterion
I will paste de-identified interview notes and our criteria. Group the comments under the criterion they match. If a comment is vague, quote it and say what behavior is missing. Do not score, rank, compare people, or recommend who should move forward. Do not infer gender, age, ethnicity, or any personal trait. If a note mentions something irrelevant to the job, flag it as out of scope. Write a neutral summary the interviewer can correct. Remind me that a human hiring manager makes the decision and that I must follow company policy on candidate data.
Process
- 1. Build the template from the existing job criteria only.
- 2. Collect notes, then remove names and personal details before pasting.
- 3. Group evidence and send it back to the interviewer to correct.
- 4. Leave the decision with the hiring manager.
Result
Samir's estimate is that debriefs now start from a similar page instead of three conflicting styles. Interviewers still write thin notes when they are rushed, but vague lines get sent back more often. He caught the model trying to imply a preference and deleted that paragraph. One manager wanted a numeric rank, and Samir refused because the template does not score people. Hiring did not suddenly get faster. The modest change is that, when someone asks why a candidate moved forward, he can point to behaviors the interviewer confirmed.
Lessons
- Structure notes around job evidence, not vibes or scores.
- Remove personal data before pasting, and follow company policy.
- The interviewer must verify the summary; the manager still decides.