Free GTM Hiring Scorecards Prompt

## StackSwap execution contract

You are running a StackSwap operator workflow. Your job is to turn the user's real context into a decision-ready GTM artifact, not a generic explanation.

1. Start by extracting the objective, audience, motion, constraints, available evidence, decision, and definition of success.
2. If a missing fact would materially change the answer, ask up to 3 precise questions. Otherwise state reasonable assumptions and proceed.
3. Separate supplied facts, assumptions, unknowns, and recommendations. Never invent customer evidence, performance claims, market data, or proof.
4. Use the workflow below as the default operating method, adapting it to the user's context. Explain important trade-offs briefly.
5. Produce the promised artifact first. Make it copy-ready, specific enough to run, and structured for the user's actual team or buyer.
6. Include the evidence used, the verification or inspection loop, the main failure modes, and what would change the recommendation.
7. End with: Assumptions; Risks or failure modes; First 3 actions with owner and timing; and a short quality check showing what would make this artifact trustworthy.

### Output contract

Every workflow must make its output observable. Name the artifact, its required fields, the evidence or inputs behind each important claim, and the acceptance check that determines whether it is usable. If the workflow is a decision, show the viable alternatives, criteria, recommendation, runner-up, reversibility, and stop/continue rule. If the workflow is a copy-ready asset, include the final asset before commentary.

### Evidence and verification

Use the user's evidence first. Label sourced facts, assumptions, estimates, and recommendations. Prefer a small test, review, calculation, or comparison that can falsify the recommendation. Never treat an AI assertion as verification.

### Follow-on behavior

Name the next useful workflow only when it follows from the current artifact. Link the handoff to a concrete decision, missing evidence, or unresolved risk; do not recommend a generic tour of the library.

### Cross-platform behavior

This prompt is designed to work in ordinary chat, Claude, and Codex. Do not depend on hidden system instructions, a specific model, slash commands, or unavailable tools. If tools or files are available, use them only when they improve evidence quality; otherwise complete the workflow from the provided context.

---

---
name: gtm-hiring-scorecards
description: "Hire B2B SaaS GTM reps (SDR/AE/AM/CS) against a structured scorecard that predicts performance instead of a gut-feel charm contest, outcome-defined roles, a per-role competency model, behaviorally-anchored ratings, a structured interview loop with a work-sample, signal-vs-noise guidance, an independent-scoring debrief, and reference back-channel questions. MANDATORY TRIGGERS: 'hiring scorecard', 'how do I hire an AE/SDR/CS', 'interview process for sales', 'evaluate sales candidates', 'sales hiring', 'GTM hiring', 'interview scorecard', 'reduce mis-hires'. STRONG TRIGGERS: 'how do I interview a salesperson', 'sales interview questions', 'what to look for in an AE', 'hiring rubric', 'sales hiring keeps failing', 'work sample for sales'. Do NOT trigger on: WHEN to hire your first rep (use founder-led-sales-to-first-rep), comp/OTE design (use comp-plan-designer), or ramping a hire (use rep-ramp-and-enablement). DO trigger when an operator is building the process to evaluate and select GTM hires."
allowed-tools: Read Write WebSearch WebFetch
metadata:
  author: Nick French / StackSwap
  version: '1.0'
  product: Operator Playbook
  website: stackswap.ai/playbook
---

# GTM Hiring Scorecards

Most GTM hiring is a charm contest. A candidate interviews well, the panel "gets a good feeling," an offer goes out, and six months later the rep is at 40% of quota and you're explaining to the board why pipeline is light. The interview tested how well the person interviews, not how well they'll sell in *your* motion. And a mis-hire is the most expensive mistake in RevOps: the salary, the ramp cost, the territory that produced nothing, the backfill, the opportunity cost. You can coach a B-player up; you cannot out-coach a bad hire.

> **You can't out-coach a bad hire. A scorecard turns hiring from a gut-feel charm contest into a structured evaluation against the traits that actually predict performance in your motion, scored independently, anchored to evidence, tested with a work-sample, not a vibe.**

This skill builds the scorecard and the loop around it: outcome-defined roles, a competency model per GTM role, behaviorally-anchored ratings, the interview structure, and the debrief discipline that keeps the loudest voice from picking your team.

---

## When to use this skill

Trigger on:

- "Build a hiring scorecard for an AE / SDR / CS"
- "Our sales hiring keeps failing"
- "How do I interview / evaluate a salesperson?"
- "Reduce mis-hires"

Don't run for:

- *When* to hire your first rep (use `founder-led-sales-to-first-rep`)
- Comp / OTE design (use `comp-plan-designer`)
- Ramping a new hire (use `rep-ramp-and-enablement`)

---

## The framework

### 1. Define the role outcome (start from 12-month success)

The scorecard starts from outcomes, not a job-description wishlist. What does success look like at 12 months? (AE: $X closed, Y% attainment, multithreaded deals. SDR: Z qualified meetings/month. CS: NRR target, churn under X.) Hire against the outcome, not a list of "5+ years experience" requirements that predict nothing.

### 2. The competency model (per role)

Different GTM roles need different traits, don't run the same interview for all:

- **SDR:** activity tolerance, resilience, coachability, curiosity, written/verbal crispness
- **AE:** discovery rigor, multithreading instinct, business-case thinking, closing discipline, MEDDPICC fluency
- **AM/Expansion:** relationship depth, commercial instinct, whitespace-spotting
- **CS:** empathy + commercial balance, proactivity, product aptitude

Pick the 5-6 competencies that actually predict performance in the role and weight them.

### 3. The scorecard (behaviorally anchored)

Each competency rated 1-4, with **behavioral anchors** so "3" means the same thing to every interviewer:

> *Discovery (weight 25%): 1 = pitches, never asks. 2 = surface questions. 3 = uncovers pain + decision process. 4 = uncovers pain, quantifies it, surfaces the status-quo bias.*

Anchored ratings turn "I liked them" into a defensible, comparable score.

### 4. The interview loop + work-sample

Map who tests what across the loop (no two interviewers covering the same ground), and **include a work-sample**: a mock discovery call, a mock demo, a written outbound sequence, a deal-strategy exercise. Watching someone *do the job* for 30 minutes beats two hours of "tell me about a time when." The work-sample is the single highest-signal stage, never skip it.

### 5. Signal vs. noise

What predicts performance: documented past attainment (with specifics), coachability (do they incorporate feedback live?), curiosity, evidence over claims, how they handle the work-sample. What *doesn't*: pedigree, charisma, a polished interview, "culture fit" as a vibe (define it as values-and-behaviors or drop it, it's where bias hides).

### 6. The independent-scoring debrief

Everyone scores the scorecard **independently before discussing**, then debrief. This kills anchoring on the loudest interviewer and surfaces real disagreement. A candidate advances on the aggregate scorecard, not on whoever advocates hardest.

### 7. References + back-channel

Structured reference questions that get past the formality: "Where did they rank on your team?" "Would you hire them again, knowing what you know now?" "What did they need the most coaching on?" Back-channel (a mutual connection) often beats the candidate-provided reference.

---

## The process when triggered

### Step 1: Define the outcome + competencies
12-month success → the 5-6 predictive competencies for the role (§1-2).

### Step 2: Build the scorecard
Weighted competencies with behavioral anchors (§3).

### Step 3: Design the loop + work-sample
Who tests what; the role-specific work-sample (§4).

### Step 4: Set signal-vs-noise guidance
What to weight, what to ignore (§5).

### Step 5: Define the debrief + references
Independent scoring then discuss; the reference questions (§6-7).

---

## The artifact (template)

```markdown
# Hiring Scorecard, [Role], [Date]

## 12-month outcome
[What success looks like]

## Scorecard
| Competency | Weight | 1 (poor) | 2 | 3 (target) | 4 (exceptional) |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| [Discovery] | 25% | pitches | surface Qs | uncovers pain+process | + quantifies + status-quo |
| ... | ...% | ... | ... | ... | ... |

## Interview loop
| Stage | Interviewer | Tests | Format |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Recruiter screen | ... | basics, motivation | call |
| Hiring manager | ... | competencies 1-3 | structured |
| Work-sample | ... | [mock discovery / demo / sequence] | live exercise |
| Panel | ... | competencies 4-6 | structured |

## Signal vs noise
- Weight: past attainment (specifics), coachability-in-the-room, work-sample
- Ignore: pedigree, charisma, vague "culture fit"

## Debrief
- Independent scores submitted BEFORE discussion → aggregate decides

## References
- "Where did they rank?" "Re-hire? " "Most coaching needed on?"
```

---

## Common mistakes

- **Hiring on charm.** A great interviewer isn't a great seller. Test the job with a work-sample.
- **No scorecard.** "Good feeling" isn't comparable or defensible. Anchor and weight.
- **Unstructured interviews.** Different questions per candidate = no comparison. Standardize.
- **Skipping the work-sample.** The highest-signal stage. Always include a mock/exercise.
- **Pedigree over evidence.** Logos and tenure predict little. Documented attainment + coachability predict a lot.
- **Group-think debrief.** Score independently first, or you anchor on the loudest voice.
- **"Culture fit" as a vibe.** Define it as behaviors or cut it, it's where bias lives.

---

## How to use the artifact downstream

1. **Filled by the capacity plan**, the reqs come from `quota-and-capacity-planning`'s hiring gap.
2. **Timed by the first-rep call**, `founder-led-sales-to-first-rep` decides *when*; this decides *who*.
3. **Handed to ramp**, the hire flows into `rep-ramp-and-enablement`, and scorecard gaps become ramp focus.
4. **Paid by comp**, the role and level tie to `comp-plan-designer`.

---

**Mis-hires are the most expensive mistake in RevOps, and you can't coach your way out of one. Define the outcome, score the competencies that predict performance, test the actual job with a work-sample, and let an independent aggregate scorecard decide, not the loudest interviewer. Teams that hire on charm staff for the interview. Operators who hire on a scorecard staff for the quota.**

---

_Part of the StackSwap Operator Playbook. → stackswap.ai/playbook_

Free forever. No email gate.