These prompts turn your rough interview notes into polished feedback summaries that hiring managers actually read. Each prompt takes 30 seconds to fill out and produces a finished assessment you can send immediately.
These prompts pair well with Jasper AI for Recruiters-specific tone control, or Copy.ai for fast iteration.
First Round Technical Interviews
You are a technical recruiter writing feedback notes after a first-round coding interview.
Candidate: {candidate_name} Role: {position_title} Interview length: {duration_minutes} minutes Technical challenge: {coding_problem_given} Solution approach: {how_they_solved_it} Code quality: {clean_messy_or_average} Communication during coding: {clear_confused_or_silent} Questions they asked: {questions_or_none} Red flags: {any_concerns_or_none} Overall impression: {strong_pass_weak_pass_or_no_hire}
Write 250-300 word interview feedback notes using this structure: Technical competency (40%), Problem-solving approach (30%), Communication skills (30%). Include a clear recommendation and next steps. Use bullet points for key strengths and concerns.
When to use it: Right after a technical screen when you need to send feedback to the engineering manager before end of day.
Pro tip: If they didn’t finish the coding problem, focus on their approach and thought process rather than the incomplete solution - this shows problem-solving ability better than rushed, buggy code.
You are documenting feedback for a senior developer who struggled with a supposedly junior-level technical question.
Candidate: {candidate_name} Years of experience: {experience_years} Role applied for: {senior_position_title} Technical question: {specific_question_asked} Their answer: {what_they_said} Knowledge gaps: {specific_areas_they_missed} How they handled uncertainty: {confident_deflected_or_admitted_gaps} Resume claims vs performance: {oversold_accurate_or_undersold} Salvageable with training: {yes_no_or_maybe} Recommended next step: {pass_to_next_round_or_decline}
Write a 200-250 word diplomatic feedback summary that addresses the experience-performance mismatch without being harsh. Structure as: Resume vs Reality, Specific Gaps, Coachability Assessment, Recommendation. Be honest but professional.
When to use it: When a candidate’s interview performance doesn’t match their resume claims and you need to document the gap tactfully.
Pro tip: Always include specific examples of what they missed - “couldn’t explain database indexing” is more actionable feedback than “weak on backend concepts.”
You are summarizing feedback for a junior developer who impressed you beyond their experience level.
Candidate: {candidate_name} Experience level: {months_or_years} Position: {junior_role_title} What impressed you: {specific_technical_strengths} Learning approach: {how_they_tackle_new_problems} Questions they asked: {thoughtful_questions_list} Growth potential indicators: {specific_examples} Current skill gaps: {areas_needing_development} Team fit assessment: {culture_and_collaboration_notes} Fast-track potential: {yes_or_no_with_timeline}
Write 300-350 word feedback notes structured as: Technical Foundation (current skills), Learning Velocity (growth indicators), Development Plan (6-month trajectory), Team Integration, Strong Hire Recommendation. Emphasize potential while being realistic about current limitations.
When to use it: After interviewing a junior candidate who shows exceptional learning ability and you want to advocate for them internally.
Pro tip: Quantify their learning speed with specific examples - “picked up React hooks concept in 10 minutes during our discussion” carries more weight than “fast learner.”
You are writing feedback for a technical interview where the candidate solved the problem using an unconventional but valid approach.
Candidate: {candidate_name} Standard solution approach: {typical_way_to_solve_problem} Their approach: {what_they_actually_did} Technical correctness: {works_perfectly_works_with_bugs_or_broken} Efficiency comparison: {faster_slower_or_same_as_standard} Creativity level: {innovative_different_or_overthinking} Explanation quality: {clear_confusing_or_incomplete} Adaptability: {willing_to_discuss_alternatives_or_defensive} Team compatibility: {collaborative_or_lone_wolf_tendencies}
Write 275-325 word feedback focusing on problem-solving creativity vs team collaboration balance. Structure as: Solution Analysis, Technical Merit, Communication Assessment, Team Dynamics Prediction, Hire/No-Hire with reasoning.
When to use it: When a candidate’s solution works but isn’t what your team typically uses, and you need to evaluate innovation vs consistency.
Pro tip: Test their flexibility by asking “how would you solve this differently?” - rigid thinkers struggle with alternative approaches even when their first solution works.
You are documenting a technical interview that was derailed by the candidate’s questions about company culture and work-life balance.
Candidate: {candidate_name} Technical portion completed: {percentage_or_barely_started} Culture questions asked: {specific_questions_list} Work-life balance concerns: {what_they_asked_about} Technical competency shown: {strong_adequate_or_unclear} Priorities assessment: {culture_focused_balanced_or_technical_focused} Red flag concerns: {job_hopping_burnout_or_none} Interview control: {stayed_on_track_slightly_derailed_or_completely_off_topic} Overall evaluation: {hire_maybe_or_pass}
Write 250-300 word balanced feedback that addresses both technical assessment gaps and cultural fit concerns. Structure as: Technical Evaluation (limited data), Cultural Priorities, Interview Management, Overall Assessment, Recommended Next Steps. Stay neutral on work-life balance preferences.
When to use it: When a candidate spends most of the technical interview asking about company culture instead of demonstrating coding skills.
Pro tip: Note whether their questions showed research about your company or were generic work-life balance queries - research indicates genuine interest, generic questions suggest they’re interviewing everywhere.
Behavioral Interview Assessments
You are writing feedback for a behavioral interview where the candidate gave textbook STAR method answers that felt rehearsed.
Candidate: {candidate_name} Position: {role_title} STAR examples given: {number_of_structured_answers} Authenticity level: {genuine_somewhat_rehearsed_or_obviously_scripted} Follow-up question responses: {detailed_vague_or_deflected} Specific metrics mentioned: {actual_numbers_or_vague_claims} Emotional intelligence shown: {high_moderate_or_low} Leadership examples: {strong_adequate_or_weak} Cultural adaptability: {flexible_rigid_or_unclear} Overall impression: {strong_hire_conditional_or_pass}
Write 280-320 word feedback distinguishing between interview preparation and genuine experience. Structure as: Communication Style, Experience Authenticity, Leadership Assessment, Cultural Fit, Final Recommendation. Focus on substance over presentation style.
When to use it: After a behavioral interview where you can’t tell if the candidate is well-prepared or just giving memorized answers.
Pro tip: Ask “what would you do differently now?” after their STAR examples - authentic experiences generate thoughtful reflection, rehearsed answers get repeated or vague responses.
You are documenting feedback for a candidate who gave excellent examples but showed potential attitude issues during the interview.
Candidate: {candidate_name} Strong examples shared: {specific_accomplishments_mentioned} Attitude red flags: {interrupting_dismissive_arrogant_or_defensive} Team collaboration stories: {positive_mixed_or_concerning} Response to criticism: {open_defensive_or_hostile} Credit sharing: {generous_balanced_or_takes_all_credit} Manager relationship history: {positive_neutral_or_conflict_patterns} Self-awareness level: {high_moderate_or_low} Coachability assessment: {open_resistant_or_unknown}
Write 300-350 word feedback balancing strong qualifications against behavioral concerns. Structure as: Technical/Experience Strengths, Behavioral Observations, Team Dynamics Risk Assessment, Coachability Evaluation, Conditional Recommendation with mitigation strategies.
When to use it: When a candidate has impressive experience but displayed concerning interpersonal behaviors during the interview.
Pro tip: Document specific examples of attitude issues with quotes - “said previous manager ‘didn’t understand the technical requirements’” is more actionable than “seemed arrogant.”
You are summarizing a behavioral interview with a candidate who was refreshingly honest about failures and weaknesses.
Candidate: {candidate_name} Role: {position_applying_for} Failures discussed: {specific_examples_they_shared} Learning from mistakes: {what_they_changed_afterward} Weakness acknowledgment: {genuine_areas_for_improvement} Growth examples: {how_they_developed_skills} Self-reflection quality: {deep_surface_or_defensive} Accountability level: {owns_mistakes_shares_blame_or_blames_others} Improvement mindset: {growth_oriented_fixed_or_unclear} Authenticity impression: {very_genuine_somewhat_or_questionable}
Write 260-300 word feedback highlighting self-awareness and growth potential. Structure as: Authenticity Assessment, Learning Agility, Accountability Patterns, Growth Trajectory, Strong Hire Recommendation. Emphasize the value of honest self-assessment in team environments.
When to use it: After interviewing someone who openly discussed failures and showed genuine self-awareness about improvement areas.
Pro tip: Candidates who can articulate specific lessons learned from failures usually adapt faster to new roles than those who claim no significant mistakes.
You are writing feedback for a management candidate who described leading through a team restructuring or layoffs.
Candidate: {candidate_name} Management level: {team_size_and_scope} Restructuring situation: {downsizing_reorganization_or_merger} Their role in changes: {decision_maker_implementer_or_messenger} Team communication approach: {transparent_selective_or_secretive} Employee support provided: {extensive_standard_or_minimal} Difficult conversations: {handled_well_avoided_or_handled_poorly} Team morale outcomes: {maintained_declined_or_improved} Personal lessons learned: {specific_insights_gained} Leadership philosophy: {people_first_business_first_or_balanced}
Write 320-370 word assessment of crisis leadership and change management skills. Structure as: Change Leadership Approach, Communication Effectiveness, Team Support Quality, Decision-Making Under Pressure, Overall Management Assessment. Focus on how they balance business needs with employee care.
When to use it: When interviewing management candidates who’ve led teams through significant organizational changes or workforce reductions.
Pro tip: Pay attention to whether they mention following up with departed employees or maintaining relationships - this shows genuine care vs. just completing a business task.
You are documenting a behavioral interview where the candidate couldn’t provide specific examples for key competency questions.
Candidate: {candidate_name} Position requirements: {key_competencies_needed} Vague responses to: {which_behavioral_questions} Hypothetical answers given: {what_they_said_they_would_do} Experience gaps revealed: {areas_lacking_concrete_examples} Deflection patterns: {changed_subject_asked_different_question_or_general_statements} Potential reasons: {new_to_field_different_industry_or_poor_preparation} Coachability indicators: {open_to_learning_defensive_or_unclear} Cultural enthusiasm: {high_moderate_or_low}
Write 240-280 word honest assessment of experience gaps vs. potential. Structure as: Experience Reality Check, Competency Gaps, Potential Assessment, Development Needs, Recommendation with timeline for impact. Be direct but fair about readiness for the role.
When to use it: When a candidate seems eager but can’t provide concrete examples of the core competencies your role requires.
Pro tip: If they can’t give examples, ask about adjacent experiences or personal projects - sometimes people have relevant skills from non-work contexts they don’t initially consider.
Panel Interview Summaries
You are consolidating feedback from a panel interview where interviewers had mixed reactions to the same candidate.
Candidate: {candidate_name} Role: {position_title} Positive feedback themes: {what_multiple_interviewers_liked} Negative feedback themes: {consistent_concerns_across_panel} Split opinions on: {areas_where_interviewers_disagreed} Technical assessment: {strong_adequate_or_weak} Cultural fit assessment: {good_fit_mixed_or_poor_fit} Experience relevance: {directly_relevant_transferable_or_stretch} Panel consensus level: {unanimous_majority_or_split_decision} Tiebreaker factors: {what_should_drive_final_decision}
Write 350-400 word summary that synthesizes diverse viewpoints into actionable hiring guidance. Structure as: Consensus Strengths, Consensus Concerns, Areas of Disagreement, Deciding Factors, Final Recommendation with reasoning. Present balanced view while giving clear direction.
When to use it: After a panel interview where you need to make sense of conflicting feedback and reach a hiring decision.
Pro tip: Weight feedback based on interviewer expertise in relevant areas - a senior developer’s technical assessment carries more weight than HR’s technical opinion.
You are writing a panel summary for a candidate who interviewed excellently with junior team members but poorly with senior leadership.
Candidate: {candidate_name} Junior team feedback: {what_peers_and_junior_staff_said} Senior leadership feedback: {director_vp_or_c_level_concerns} Communication style differences: {how_they_adapted_or_didnt_to_seniority} Technical depth shown: {surface_level_or_deep_expertise} Experience positioning: {oversold_accurate_or_undersold} Confidence level: {appropriate_overconfident_or_underconfident} Growth trajectory: {ready_for_next_level_or_needs_development} Team integration prediction: {smooth_challenging_or_problematic}
Write 300-350 word analysis of seniority-based performance differences. Structure as: Performance Pattern Analysis, Communication Adaptation, Experience Level Assessment, Integration Risk, Recommendation with placement level guidance.
When to use it: When a candidate performs differently across seniority levels in your interview panel and you need to assess appropriate role level.
Pro tip: Candidates who can’t adjust their communication style for different audiences often struggle in cross-functional roles that require stakeholder management.
You are summarizing a panel interview for a remote candidate where technology issues affected the assessment quality.
Candidate: {candidate_name} Technical issues encountered: {audio_video_connection_or_platform_problems} Interview segments affected: {which_portions_had_problems} Candidate’s tech troubleshooting: {handled_well_struggled_or_panicked} Compensation attempts made: {extra_time_follow_up_calls_or_none} Assessment completeness: {full_evaluation_partial_or_inadequate} Remote work readiness: {well_prepared_somewhat_or_unprepared} Professional handling: {graceful_frustrated_or_blamed_technology} Rescheduling consideration: {recommended_unnecessary_or_already_done}
Write 280-320 word fair assessment that separates technical difficulties from candidate evaluation. Structure as: Technology Impact Assessment, Remote Readiness Evaluation, Candidate Response Quality, Assessment Reliability, Next Steps Recommendation. Account for circumstances while maintaining evaluation standards.
When to use it: After a video interview disrupted by technical problems where you need to determine if the assessment was fair and complete.
Pro tip: How candidates handle tech difficulties often predicts their problem-solving approach and grace under pressure - sometimes the disruption reveals more than a smooth interview would.
You are documenting a panel interview where the candidate asked pointed questions that made interviewers uncomfortable.
Candidate: {candidate_name} Challenging questions asked: {specific_questions_that_created_tension} Interviewer reactions: {defensive_thoughtful_or_dismissive} Topics that caused discomfort: {company_culture_leadership_or_business_practices} Research depth shown: {well_informed_some_research_or_uninformed} Delivery style: {professional_aggressive_or_confrontational} Legitimate concerns raised: {valid_business_questions_or_inappropriate} Cultural fit implications: {good_fit_challenging_or_poor_fit} Follow-up handling: {graceful_persistent_or_dropped_topics}
Write 320-370 word balanced evaluation of candidate boldness vs. interview appropriateness. Structure as: Question Quality Assessment, Professional Delivery Evaluation, Cultural Implications, Team Dynamics Prediction, Recommendation with integration considerations.
When to use it: When a candidate’s tough questions revealed either healthy skepticism or poor interview judgment, and you need to assess the difference.
Pro tip: Distinguish between candidates who ask hard questions professionally vs. those who seem to be testing boundaries - the first shows critical thinking, the second shows poor judgment.
You are consolidating panel feedback for an internal candidate interviewing for a promotion to management.
Internal candidate: {employee_name} Current role: {present_position} Promotion target: {management_role_applied_for} Technical competency: {strong_adequate_or_needs_development} Leadership potential shown: {natural_leader_developing_or_weak} Peer relationships: {well_liked_respected_or_problematic} Management readiness: {ready_now_needs_coaching_or_premature} Knowledge of company: {deep_understanding_good_or_limited} Growth trajectory: {high_potential_steady_or_plateauing} Panel consensus: {unanimous_support_mixed_or_concerns} Development needs: {specific_areas_requiring_improvement}
Write 340-390 word promotion assessment that weighs current performance against management potential. Structure as: Current Performance Summary, Leadership Readiness, Development Requirements, Internal Dynamics, Promotion Recommendation with timeline and support plan.
When to use it: After interviewing an internal employee for a management promotion where you need to assess readiness and development needs.
Pro tip: Internal promotions require different evaluation criteria - focus more on leadership potential and less on company culture fit, but be honest about management readiness gaps.
Final Round Decision Documentation
You are writing final round feedback for a candidate who interviewed well but has a gap in employment that wasn’t fully explained.
Candidate: {candidate_name} Employment gap: {duration_and_timeframe} Explanation given: {reason_provided_by_candidate} Verification status: {confirmed_unverified_or_inconsistent} Interview performance: {strong_good_or_adequate} Skill currency: {up_to_date_slightly_outdated_or_significantly_behind} Reference availability: {provided_promised_or_avoided} Transparency level: {fully_open_somewhat_vague_or_evasive} Risk assessment: {low_moderate_or_high_risk} Mitigation strategies: {probationary_period_additional_references_or_none}
Write 320-370 word decision framework that balances interview strength against employment history concerns. Structure as: Interview Performance Summary, Gap Analysis, Risk Assessment, Due Diligence Recommendations, Conditional Offer Guidance.
When to use it: When you want to hire someone based on interviews but need to document concerns about unexplained employment gaps for legal and business protection.
Pro tip: Focus on skill currency and interview performance rather than speculating about gap reasons - outdated skills are a business risk, personal circumstances during gaps usually aren’t.
You are documenting the decision to pass on a candidate who was technically qualified but didn’t demonstrate passion for the company or role.
Candidate: {candidate_name} Technical qualifications: {strong_adequate_or_weak} Company research shown: {extensive_basic_or_minimal} Enthusiasm level: {high_moderate_or_low} Questions asked about role: {thoughtful_generic_or_none} Career motivation: {clear_direction_unclear_or_money_focused} Long-term interest: {genuine_uncertain_or_stepping_stone} Cultural alignment: {strong_fit_neutral_or_misaligned} Engagement during interview: {high_energy_professional_or_disinterested} Retention risk: {low_moderate_or_high}
Write 290-340 word rationale for declining a technically qualified candidate based on engagement and cultural fit. Structure as: Technical Competency Acknowledgment, Engagement Assessment, Cultural Fit Analysis, Retention Risk, Decision Rationale with examples.
When to use it: When you need to document why you’re passing on a qualified candidate who seemed disengaged or unmotivated during interviews.
Pro tip: Document specific examples of disengagement - “didn’t ask questions about team structure” is more defensible than “seemed uninterested” if the decision is questioned later.
You are writing offer-stage feedback for your top choice candidate, highlighting what made them stand out and addressing any final concerns.
Top candidate: {candidate_name} Key differentiators: {what_made_them_the_best_choice} Technical excellence: {specific_strong_areas} Cultural fit indicators: {examples_of_alignment} Leadership potential: {demonstrated_abilities} Team integration prediction: {smooth_excellent_or_transformational} Salary expectations: {within_budget_stretch_or_over_budget} Start date availability: {immediate_standard_notice_or_delayed} Competing offers: {none_possible_or_confirmed} Closing strategy: {standard_offer_competitive_package_or_sell_opportunity}
Write 350-400 word compelling case for this hire that can be used in offer approval and candidate closing conversations. Structure as: Standout Qualifications, Cultural Fit Evidence, Business Impact Prediction, Offer Strategy, Urgency Factors.
When to use it: When you’ve identified your preferred candidate and need to build internal support for the offer while preparing your closing strategy.
Pro tip: Include specific quotes or examples that demonstrate cultural fit - these details help hiring managers understand why this person is worth stretching budget or timeline for.
You are documenting feedback for a final round candidate who performed well but raised salary expectations significantly above budget.
Candidate: {candidate_name} Interview performance: {excellent_strong_or_good} Salary range discussed: {their_expectations} Budget for role: {approved_salary_range} Gap amount: {dollar_difference_or_percentage_over} Justification provided: {their_reasoning_for_higher_salary} Market research: {above_market_at_market_or_below_market} Negotiation flexibility: {firm_on_number_some_flexibility_or_very_flexible} Alternative compensation: {equity_benefits_or_other_options_available} Hire urgency: {critical_important_or_flexible_timing}
Write 310-360 word analysis of candidate value vs. budget constraints with negotiation recommendations. Structure as: Candidate Value Assessment, Market Positioning, Budget Impact Analysis, Negotiation Options, Recommendation with business case.
When to use it: When your preferred candidate’s salary expectations exceed budget and you need to evaluate options for closing them.
Pro tip: Calculate the