---
name: reference-check-script
description: "Run a rigorous candidate reference check that surfaces real signal. Use when asked to prepare or conduct reference calls for a job candidate, design reference questions, or build a reference-check rubric. Produces a structured question set, probing follow-ups, a red/yellow/green scoring rubric, and the legal guardrails — designed to get past 'they were great' without leading the referee."
homepage: https://mohitagw15856.github.io/pm-claude-skills/skill/reference-check-script.html
metadata:
  {
    "openclaw": { "emoji": "🧲" }
  }
---

# 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