init

modes/interview/debrief.md

@@ -0,0 +1,200 @@
+# Mode: interview/debrief — Post-Interview Debrief
+
+After a real interview, capture what was asked, assess what landed and what didn't, close gaps before the next round, and update the question bank.
+
+---
+
+## When to Run This Skill
+
+- Immediately after a real interview (while memory is fresh)
+- After a recruiter call that surfaced new information about the process
+- When the candidate learns the next round format and interviewer
+
+---
+
+## Inputs
+
+1. **Interview debrief from candidate** — what questions were asked, how they answered, what felt strong or weak
+2. **Interviewer name and role** — informs next round prediction
+3. **Round outcome** (if known) — moved forward / rejected / pending
+4. **Next round details** (if known) — format, interviewers, timeline
+5. **Question bank** at `interview-prep/question-bank.md` — update with real data
+6. **Story bank** at `interview-prep/story-bank.md` — add new stories if surfaced
+7. **CV** at `cv.md` + `article-digest.md` (if present) — to ground suggested answers in real experience
+8. **Retracted claims** at `interview-prep/retracted-claims.md` (if present) — hard gate; never use a retracted claim in a suggested answer even if the candidate said it in the interview
+9. **Role-specific prep file** — append debrief notes
+
+---
+
+## Step 1 — Capture What Was Asked
+
+Ask the candidate to list every question they remember, in order if possible. Don't prompt with options — let them recall freely first.
+
+For each question captured:
+- What did they say?
+- How did the interviewer react (positive signal, neutral, pushed back, moved on quickly)?
+- Did they feel confident or uncertain?
+
+If memory is incomplete, ask targeted prompts:
+- "Were there any questions that caught you off guard?"
+- "Was there anything you wished you'd answered differently?"
+- "Did the interviewer follow up on anything — that usually means they wanted more?"
+
+---
+
+## Step 2 — Honest Assessment Per Question
+
+For each question, produce:
+
+```markdown
+**Q: [question]**
+- What was said: [summary of their answer]
+- What landed: [what was good — be specific]
+- What was missing: [gap — precise technical term, missing result, no reflection, etc.]
+- Correct/complete answer: [what the full answer should include]
+- Status: ✅ Strong / 🟡 Solid / 🔴 Gap
+```
+
+Be direct. If they missed the core concept the question was testing, say so. If an answer was genuinely strong, say that too. The debrief is the most valuable learning moment — vagueness wastes it.
+
+---
+
+## Step 3 — Update Question Bank
+
+For each question debriefed, update `interview-prep/question-bank.md`:
+- Change status to ✅ / 🟡 / 🔴 based on real performance
+- Add gap notes from the debrief
+- Add any new questions that appeared and weren't in the bank yet
+
+If the question bank doesn't exist, create it with the questions from this interview as the seed.
+
+---
+
+## Step 4 — Close the Gaps
+
+For each 🔴 gap identified:
+
+1. **Explain the correct answer** — clear, concise, with a worked example (code, calculation, diagram) where it helps
+2. **Connect to a real story** if possible — "you actually have this in your [existing story from the story bank] — here's how to use it"
+3. **Add to role-specific prep file** under a "Gaps to Close Before Round N" section
+4. **Add to `interview-prep/interview-prep-guide.md`** (if the candidate maintains one) when it's a reusable principle that applies beyond this role
+
+---
+
+## Step 5 — Extract New Stories
+
+Sometimes a real interview surfaces a story the candidate hadn't prepared. If the candidate described an experience they hadn't formalized:
+
+> "You mentioned [X] in your answer — that sounds like it could become a proper STAR+R story. Want to build it out now while it's fresh?"
+
+If yes, build it out as a STAR+R story (Situation, Task, Action, Result, Reflection) and append it to `interview-prep/story-bank.md`.
+
+---
+
+## Step 6 — Next Round Intelligence
+
+If the candidate knows the next round format:
+
+1. **Predict likely questions** based on:
+   - Next interviewer's role (e.g., senior practitioner → depth in the core skill, design; cross-functional peer → collaboration, domain boundaries; executive → strategy, business impact)
+   - What was covered in this round (next round typically goes deeper, not wider)
+   - What the interviewer in this round seemed most interested in
+
+   Label every prediction `[inferred]` — never present a predicted question as if it were sourced from real candidates or insiders.
+
+2. **Build a priority list** for next round prep — ordered by gap severity and likelihood of being tested
+
+3. **Suggest running** `interview/plan` with the next round details to build a full prep plan
+
+---
+
+## Step 7 — Probability Assessment (Optional)
+
+If the candidate asks for an honest read on their chances:
+
+Assess based on:
+- Number and severity of gaps (🔴 on fundamentals = higher risk than 🔴 on advanced topics)
+- Interviewer signals (gave specific next round details = positive; vague = neutral; short call = risk)
+- Role fit (years of experience, domain match, location)
+- Differentiators (things the candidate said that most candidates wouldn't)
+
+Be honest. A probability range with clear reasoning is more useful than false confidence.
+
+---
+
+## Step 8 — Save Debrief
+
+Append to `interview-prep/{company-slug}-{role-slug}.md`:
+
+```markdown
+## Round [N] Debrief — [YYYY-MM-DD]
+
+**Interviewer:** [name, role]
+**Round type:** [screening / technical / design-case-study / behavioral]
+**Outcome:** [pending / moved forward / rejected]
+
+### Questions Asked
+[list]
+
+### Gaps Identified
+[list with correct answers]
+
+### Next Round
+**Format:** [if known]
+**Interviewers:** [if known]
+**Priority prep:** [top 3 topics to close before next round]
+
+### Process Intel (recruiter / HM screens — omit if not applicable)
+**Comp discussed:** [yes / no — if yes, what was said and what was anchored]
+**Timeline:** [any dates or deadlines mentioned]
+**Other candidates:** [if disclosed]
+**Next steps:** [what the interviewer said happens next and by when]
+```
+
+---
+
+## Step 9 — Write Session Transcript
+
+After the debrief, also write a machine-readable session transcript to `interview-prep/sessions/{company-slug}-{role-slug}-{round}-{YYYY-MM-DD}.md`. This is a structured record of the round for downstream analysis modes; the speaker-labelled turns let a consumer read either side without re-inferring who spoke. The full contract lives in `interview-prep/sessions/README.md`.
+
+Format:
+
+```markdown
+---
+company: [company]
+role: [role]
+round: [screen | hiring-manager | technical | system-design | behavioral | onsite | final]
+date: YYYY-MM-DD
+interviewer_role: [role, if known]
+source: debrief
+---
+
+## Q1
+**Interviewer:** [question as asked]
+<!-- competency: tag[, tag...] -->
+**Candidate:** [answer as delivered / reconstructed in this debrief]
+
+## Q2
+...
+```
+
+Rules for the transcript:
+
+- **Map the round type to the enum** above (e.g. recruiter screen → `screen`, HM screen → `hiring-manager`, technical deep-dive → `technical`, design/case-study → `system-design`).
+- **Tag each answer.** On the line directly above each `**Candidate:**` line, emit `<!-- competency: tag[, tag...] -->` — lowercase-kebab-case, comma-separated for multi-competency answers (e.g. `system-design`, `people-leadership`, `incident-response`). You already assessed each answer in Step 2, so tag from that assessment rather than re-reading. Tags are free-form; pick the competency the question actually tested.
+- **Reconstruct the candidate turn faithfully.** Use what the candidate reported saying in Step 1, not an idealized answer. The "correct/complete answer" from Step 2 belongs in the debrief file, never in the transcript — the transcript records what happened.
+- **`source: debrief`.**
+- The session file lands in a gitignored directory (real names/companies never enter version control); write it without redacting.
+
+---
+
+## Rules
+
+- **Debrief immediately.** Memory of interview details degrades fast — within hours, specific questions and reactions are forgotten. Run this skill the same day.
+- **Don't soften gaps.** A 🔴 gap that gets called 🟡 out of kindness will show up again in the next round.
+- **Never put invented claims in the candidate's mouth.** Correct/complete answers may draw on general domain knowledge, but any suggested personal claim or metric must come from what the candidate said, `cv.md`, `article-digest.md`, or the story bank.
+- **Retracted claims are a hard gate.** If a claim appears in `interview-prep/retracted-claims.md`, never suggest the candidate use it — even if they said it in the real interview. Flag it: "That claim is in your retracted list — it's not defensible under pressure. Here's a version that doesn't depend on it."
+- **Record new retractions.** If the debrief reveals a claim the candidate used in the real interview that they now agree isn't defensible, offer to append it to `interview-prep/retracted-claims.md`: `**"[claim]"** ([context]). Reason: [one-line reason + correct framing if applicable].`
+- **Extract vocabulary gaps explicitly.** If the candidate used an imprecise term where a precise one exists, add it to `interview-prep/interview-prep-guide.md` under the vocabulary section (if the candidate maintains one).
+- **One gap = one fix.** Don't overwhelm with a full study plan for every gap. Prioritize the 1–2 most likely to be tested in the next round.
+- **Celebrate what worked.** Debrief isn't only about gaps. Name what was strong — it reinforces the right behaviour and builds confidence for the next round.