AI SKILLS FOR HR

AI SKILLS FOR HR

Prepare a Candidate Comparison Brief

Prepare a Candidate Comparison Brief

Compare your shortlist on the criteria, not on gut feel.

Compare your shortlist on the criteria, not on gut feel.

What it does

Prepare a Candidate Comparison Brief is a free AI skill for recruiters and hiring managers. Give it your criteria and each finalist's scorecards. It builds a side-by-side candidate evaluation by criterion, marks what isn't comparable and lists questions for the decision meeting. It works in Claude, ChatGPT, Microsoft Copilot and other AI Assistants.

You give it

You give it

  • Your hiring criteria, the rating scale and what score meets the bar (for example "3+ = meets")

  • Scorecards or debrief summaries for each candidate, with who interviewed, at which stage and when

  • Optional: must-haves, work samples or reference notes, notice periods, the meeting date and decision owner

You get

You get

  • A side-by-side view of each interviewer's independent scores, against your bar if you gave one

  • One line of evidence per cell, with its source

  • What is not comparable, and why

  • Trade-offs, and a process check (missing scorecards, changed scores)

  • Three to six questions for the decision meeting, and an agenda

How it helps

It checks the panel plan first, then writes a separate brief for each interviewer, so a sales director doesn't get the hiring manager's questions.

Independent scores first

It shows each interviewer's score from before the group discussion. A score changed afterwards is marked Split, showing both, so the change gets discussed.

Like compared with like

Different interviewers, stages or exercises are marked Not comparable, with a reason. A missing score is never guessed.

No ranking, ever

Candidates stay in the order you gave. It never totals scores, names a "best candidate" or recommends a hire. Comments with no job-related example are left out.

Why we think it's useful

A decision meeting goes better when everyone looks at the same evidence, laid out the same way, with the gaps in plain sight. The brief does the laying out. The people in the room decide.

A decision meeting goes better when everyone looks at the same evidence, laid out the same way, with the gaps in plain sight. The brief does the laying out. The people in the room decide.

A decision meeting goes better when everyone looks at the same evidence, laid out the same way, with the gaps in plain sight. The brief does the laying out. The people in the room decide.

BEFORE

BEFORE

BEFORE

What the user pasted

What the user pasted

What the user pasted

Final two for Data Analyst, Brightmoor Retail. Decision meeting Thursday, Lena (head of analytics) decides. Criteria: SQL and data modelling (must), turning analysis into business recommendations (must), stakeholder communication (must), dashboard design (nice to have). Scale 1–4, 3 = meets the bar.


Candidate C-14: SQL test (scored by Omar): 4, clean joins and window functions. Case study with Lena: 3, good recommendation on store stock levels but slow to get there. Stakeholder interview with Jo (ops): 2, "too technical, lost me on the second answer". Showed a Tableau portfolio, nobody scored it.


Candidate C-09: SQL test (Omar): 3, correct but long-winded. Case study: done with Omar, not Lena, as Lena was off sick. Omar gave 4, "really clear story, knew what the CFO would ask". Stakeholder interview with Jo: 4. Dashboard: not covered.

Final two for Data Analyst, Brightmoor Retail. Decision meeting Thursday, Lena (head of analytics) decides. Criteria: SQL and data modelling (must), turning analysis into business recommendations (must), stakeholder communication (must), dashboard design (nice to have). Scale 1–4, 3 = meets the bar.


Candidate C-14: SQL test (scored by Omar): 4, clean joins and window functions. Case study with Lena: 3, good recommendation on store stock levels but slow to get there. Stakeholder interview with Jo (ops): 2, "too technical, lost me on the second answer". Showed a Tableau portfolio, nobody scored it.


Candidate C-09: SQL test (Omar): 3, correct but long-winded. Case study: done with Omar, not Lena, as Lena was off sick. Omar gave 4, "really clear story, knew what the CFO would ask". Stakeholder interview with Jo: 4. Dashboard: not covered.

Final two for Data Analyst, Brightmoor Retail. Decision meeting Thursday, Lena (head of analytics) decides. Criteria: SQL and data modelling (must), turning analysis into business recommendations (must), stakeholder communication (must), dashboard design (nice to have). Scale 1–4, 3 = meets the bar.


Candidate C-14: SQL test (scored by Omar): 4, clean joins and window functions. Case study with Lena: 3, good recommendation on store stock levels but slow to get there. Stakeholder interview with Jo (ops): 2, "too technical, lost me on the second answer". Showed a Tableau portfolio, nobody scored it.


Candidate C-09: SQL test (Omar): 3, correct but long-winded. Case study: done with Omar, not Lena, as Lena was off sick. Omar gave 4, "really clear story, knew what the CFO would ask". Stakeholder interview with Jo: 4. Dashboard: not covered.

AFTER

AFTER

AFTER

Part of the finished brief

Part of the finished brief

Part of the finished brief

Criterion

Criterion

Criterion

Must-have?

Must-have?

Must-have?

C-14

C-14

C-14

C-09

C-09

C-09

SQL and data modelling

SQL and data modelling

SQL and data modelling

Yes

Yes

Yes

4 · Met the bar (panel) (one interviewer)

4 · Met the bar (panel) (one interviewer)

4 · Met the bar (panel) (one interviewer)

3 · Met the bar (panel) (one interviewer)

3 · Met the bar (panel) (one interviewer)

3 · Met the bar (panel) (one interviewer)

Analysis into recommendations

Analysis into recommendations

Analysis into recommendations

Yes

Yes

Yes

3 · Met the bar (panel) (one interviewer) · Not comparable

3 · Met the bar (panel) (one interviewer) · Not comparable

3 · Met the bar (panel) (one interviewer) · Not comparable

4 · Met the bar (panel) (one interviewer) · Not comparable

4 · Met the bar (panel) (one interviewer) · Not comparable

4 · Met the bar (panel) (one interviewer) · Not comparable

Stakeholder communication

Stakeholder communication

Stakeholder communication

Yes

Yes

Yes

Split (3 independent → 2 after discussion)

Split (3 independent → 2 after discussion)

Split (3 independent → 2 after discussion)

4 · Met the bar (panel) (one interviewer)

4 · Met the bar (panel) (one interviewer)

4 · Met the bar (panel) (one interviewer)

Dashboard design

Dashboard design

Dashboard design

Yes

Yes

Yes

No score recorded (portfolio shown, not scored)

No score recorded (portfolio shown, not scored)

No score recorded (portfolio shown, not scored)

Not assessed

Not assessed

Not assessed

Your slot: 11:00, 30 min, Zoom · You assess: Working with sales; Planning a launch (second view, if confirmed)

  1. Working with sales: "Tell me about a time sales weren't using the materials you made. What did you do?"

    • Probes: "How did you find out?", "What changed afterwards, and how did you know?"

  • Working with sales - strong: Went to the sales team to find out why, changed the materials based on what she heard, and can show more use or better deals.

  • Working with sales - weak: Blames sales, or only resent the materials.

  • CV mentions she built sales battlecards. Ask how sales used them.

  • Conflict of interest: You mentioned you may know her from a local meetup. Tell the recruiter before Thursday so they can decide if another interviewer should take your slot.

  • Comments were left out because they referred to protected characteristics (family status).

Your slot: 11:00, 30 min, Zoom · You assess: Working with sales; Planning a launch (second view, if confirmed)

  1. Working with sales: "Tell me about a time sales weren't using the materials you made. What did you do?"

    • Probes: "How did you find out?", "What changed afterwards, and how did you know?"

  • Working with sales - strong: Went to the sales team to find out why, changed the materials based on what she heard, and can show more use or better deals.

  • Working with sales - weak: Blames sales, or only resent the materials.

  • CV mentions she built sales battlecards. Ask how sales used them.

  • Conflict of interest: You mentioned you may know her from a local meetup. Tell the recruiter before Thursday so they can decide if another interviewer should take your slot.

  • Comments were left out because they referred to protected characteristics (family status).

Your slot: 11:00, 30 min, Zoom · You assess: Working with sales; Planning a launch (second view, if confirmed)

  1. Working with sales: "Tell me about a time sales weren't using the materials you made. What did you do?"

    • Probes: "How did you find out?", "What changed afterwards, and how did you know?"

  • Working with sales - strong: Went to the sales team to find out why, changed the materials based on what she heard, and can show more use or better deals.

  • Working with sales - weak: Blames sales, or only resent the materials.

  • CV mentions she built sales battlecards. Ask how sales used them.

  • Conflict of interest: You mentioned you may know her from a local meetup. Tell the recruiter before Thursday so they can decide if another interviewer should take your slot.

  • Comments were left out because they referred to protected characteristics (family status).

Fictional company, role, candidate and people.

Get this skill

Free to use and adapt. Provided as is: AI tools don't always follow instructions, so check every output.

Free to use and adapt. Provided as is: AI tools don't always follow instructions, so check every output.

Free to use and adapt. Provided as is: AI tools don't always follow instructions, so check every output.

Which AI do you use?

Closing the predictive-validity loop requires structured pre-hire data on every requisition. Assessment scores. Behavioral profiles. Hard-skills signals including AI fluency. Without that dataset, you cannot correlate pre-hire signals with post-hire QoH. You cannot tune the next cohort sharper than the last. The hiring system stays static. The score drifts.

Bryq builds the pre-hire dataset that makes the loop possible.

Claude

ChatGPT

Microsoft Copilot

Something else (Gemini, Mistral and others)

Before you use: use an AI your company has approved, share only what the task needs (initials or IDs work), and check every draft.

Before you use: use an AI your company has approved, share only what the task needs (initials or IDs work), and check every draft.

Before you use: use an AI your company has approved, share only what the task needs (initials or IDs work), and check every draft.

Better with Bryq

Already use Bryq? Add your assessment results.

Link your Bryq account to your AI assistant, and five skills can include your candidates' Bryq results. For example, your debrief shows them next to the interview notes, and your follow-up questions focus on where the two differ. The link only reads data; it never changes anything in Bryq. Results you bring into a chat are shared with your AI provider, like anything else you paste in. Every skill works fully without it.

FAQ

Find answers to the most frequently asked questions

Compare them criterion by criterion, using each interviewer's independent score from before the group discussion. Mark anything assessed by different people or exercises as not comparable, never guess a missing score, and keep the candidates unranked so the decision owner weighs the trade-offs. This skill lays that out for you.
No. It works from the scorecards your panel has already filled in and puts them side by side. For the scorecard itself, use Build a Structured Interview Kit.
No. It never produces a ranking, a total score or a hire / no-hire recommendation. If you ask who to pick, it points to the must-have gaps and trade-offs that matter most, and the decision owner decides.
It marks those cells Not comparable, says why, and adds a question for the meeting, such as whether one person should review both candidates' work.
It shows scores only and asks what meets the bar. It labels "Met" or "Below the bar" only when you supplied one and every independent score falls on the same side.

Related skills

Generate Targeted Follow-up Questions

Generate Targeted Follow-up Questions

Generate Targeted Follow-up Questions

PREVIOUS STEP

PREVIOUS STEP

PREVIOUS STEP

Close the evidence gaps before you compare.

Compare your shortlist on the criteria, not on gut feel.

Close the evidence gaps before you compare.

Prepare an Offer Approval Brief

Prepare an Offer Approval Brief

Prepare an Offer Approval Brief

NEXT STEP

NEXT STEP

NEXT STEP

Once the team has decided, get the offer signed off in one round

Once the team has decided, get the offer signed off in one round

Once the team has decided, get the offer signed off in one round

Build a Structured Interview Kit

Build a Structured Interview Kit

Build a Structured Interview Kit

The scorecard and rating anchors this brief works from.

The scorecard and rating anchors this brief works from.

The scorecard and rating anchors this brief works from.

All 12 AI skills for HR

All 12 AI skills for HR

All 12 AI skills for HR

Every skill, from the hiring brief to the development plan.

Every skill, from the hiring brief to the development plan.

Every skill, from the hiring brief to the development plan.

Better hiring starts
with better evidence.

Bryq measures cognitive ability, personality traits, and hard skills including AI fluency in one integrated candidate profile.

Better hiring starts
with better evidence.

Bryq measures cognitive ability, personality traits, and hard skills including AI fluency in one integrated candidate profile.

Better hiring starts
with better evidence.

Start hiring based on

real data.