notque/hr

HR — People Operations

Umbrella skill for all people operations: recruiting, performance management, compensation, offer drafting, interview design, onboarding, org planning, people analytics, and policy lookup. Each mode loads its own references on demand.

Scope: Decisions and artifacts involving people's careers, compensation, and organizational structure. Use csuite for strategic business decisions, data-analysis for general analytics, professional-communication for non-HR business writing.

---

Mode Detection

Classify the request into exactly one mode. If the request spans modes, choose the primary and note the secondary.

| Mode | Signal Phrases | References | |------|---------------|------------| | RECRUITING | Pipeline, candidates, sourcing, screening, hiring status, time to fill | references/recruiting.md | | PERFORMANCE | Review, self-assessment, calibration, feedback, rating, promotion case | references/performance-management.md | | COMPENSATION | Pay, salary, equity, comp bands, benchmarking, offer competitive, retention risk | references/compensation.md | | OFFER | Draft offer, offer letter, comp package, signing bonus, start date | references/compensation.md | | INTERVIEW | Interview plan, questions, scorecard, evaluation rubric, debrief | references/recruiting.md | | ONBOARDING | New hire, first week, 30/60/90, onboarding checklist, buddy | references/recruiting.md | | ORG-PLANNING | Headcount, reorg, team structure, span of control, org design | references/org-planning.md | | PEOPLE-ANALYTICS | Attrition, headcount report, diversity metrics, org health, flight risk | references/org-planning.md | | POLICY | PTO, benefits, leave, expenses, handbook, remote work policy | (no reference — use user-provided policy docs) |

Always load: references/llm-hr-failure-modes.md — applies to every mode.

---

Sensitivity Guardrails

HR content touches people's careers, livelihoods, and legal rights. These guardrails are non-negotiable.

| Rule | Rationale | |------|-----------| | Source compensation data from user-provided or public databases | Invented market rates cause real pay decisions. State "I don't have current market data" when you don't. | | Focus recommendations on skills, behaviors, outcomes | "Hire more [group]" or "this candidate fits the culture" introduces bias. Focus on skills, behaviors, outcomes. | | Include legal review disclaimer on all binding language | Offer letters, policy interpretations, and termination language need legal review. Always state this. | | Ask for jurisdiction before advising on compliance | Employment law varies by country, state, city. Ask for jurisdiction before advising on compliance, leave, or termination. | | Minimize PII retention; use role/level identifiers | Names, salaries, SSNs, demographics — minimize retention. Use role/level when names aren't needed. | | Flag when output needs legal review | Offer letters, PIPs, termination docs, policy changes, accommodation decisions — always flag. |

---

Workflow

Mode: RECRUITING

Framework: DEFINE → PIPELINE → EVALUATE

Phase 1: DEFINE — Clarify role requirements and pipeline structure.

• Define role: title, level, team, location, hiring manager
• Establish pipeline stages: Sourced → Screen → Interview → Debrief → Offer → Accepted
• Set target metrics: time-to-fill, pipeline velocity, source mix
• Design job posting — check against references/llm-hr-failure-modes.md for biased language (because gendered/exclusionary language reduces qualified applicant pools by 10-40%)

Gate: Role defined. Pipeline stages agreed. Posting reviewed for bias.

Phase 2: PIPELINE — Track and manage candidates through stages.

• Report pipeline health: candidates per stage, days in stage, conversion rates
• Flag bottlenecks: stages with >2x average dwell time
• Track source effectiveness: which channels produce hires, not just applicants

Gate: Pipeline metrics current. Bottlenecks identified.

Phase 3: EVALUATE — Structure interviews and decisions.

• Generate interview plan: 4-6 competencies, behavioral questions per competency, scoring rubric (1-4 scale with anchors)
• Assign panel: map interviewers to competencies, ensure diverse perspectives
• Produce debrief template: structured format, evidence-based, no "gut feel" fields
• Score candidates against rubric, not against each other (because comparative scoring amplifies similarity bias)

Gate: Interview kit complete. Debrief structured. Decision evidence-based.

Onboarding sub-mode (after offer acceptance):

• Pre-start checklist: accounts, equipment, buddy assignment, welcome email
• Day 1 schedule: orientation, IT setup, team intros, expectations
• Week 1 plan: compliance training, documentation, shadowing, first task
• 30/60/90-day goals: measurable, role-specific milestones

---

Mode: PERFORMANCE

Framework: STRUCTURE → WRITE → CALIBRATE

Phase 1: STRUCTURE — Select review type and load template.

| Type | Use When | |------|----------| | Self-assessment | Employee writing their own review | | Manager review | Manager writing review for direct report | | Calibration prep | Preparing rating distributions for calibration meeting |

Gate: Review type selected. Template loaded.

Phase 2: WRITE — Generate review content with behavioral specificity.

Self-assessment:

• Key accomplishments: situation, contribution, impact (measurable)
• Goals review: status + evidence per goal
• Growth areas and challenges
• Next-period goals (specific, measurable)

Manager review:

• Overall rating with 2-3 sentence summary
• Strengths with specific behavioral examples (not personality traits)
• Development areas with actionable guidance (not vague directives)
• Goal achievement ratings with observations
• Development plan: skill → current level → target → actions
• Compensation recommendation with justification

Constraint: Describe observable behavior with specific examples ("documentation was incomplete on 3 of 5 deliverables") — because personality feedback triggers defensiveness and has no actionable path. See references/llm-hr-failure-modes.md.

Gate: Review content complete. All feedback behavior-based. Development areas actionable.

Phase 3: CALIBRATE — Prepare rating distribution and promotion cases.

• Team overview: employee, role, level, tenure, proposed rating
• Distribution check against targets: Exceeds (~15-20%), Meets (~60-70%), Below (~10-15%)
• Discussion points: borderline cases, role changes, first-at-level reviews
• Promotion candidates: current level, proposed level, evidence of next-level performance
• Compensation actions: promotions, equity refreshes, market adjustments, retention grants

Constraint: Present rating targets as guidelines, with flexibility for team context (because forced ranking creates perverse incentives and has been abandoned by most organizations).

Gate: Distribution documented. Promotion cases evidence-based. Compensation actions justified.

---

Mode: COMPENSATION

Framework: BENCHMARK → ANALYZE → RECOMMEND

Phase 1: BENCHMARK — Establish market data context.

• Identify components: base salary, equity, bonus (target + signing), benefits
• Key variables: role, level, location, company stage, industry
• Data sources: user-provided data, public salary databases, uploaded CSVs
• Never invent percentile numbers — if you don't have data, say so explicitly and offer to analyze user-provided data

Gate: Components identified. Variables specified. Data sources declared.

Phase 2: ANALYZE — Score against market and internal equity.

• Percentile bands: 25th, 50th, 75th, 90th for each component
• Band placement: where each employee falls within their band (below/at/above)
• Internal equity: same-role comparisons, compression detection, tenure-pay correlation
• Outlier detection: employees significantly above/below band midpoints
• Retention risk: below-band + high performer = flight risk

Constraint: Always state data vintage and source limitations. "Based on 2024 Levels.fyi data" not "the market rate is $X" — because stale data presented as current causes underpayment or overpayment.

Gate: Analysis complete. Sources cited. Limitations stated.

Phase 3: RECOMMEND — Deliver actionable compensation recommendations.

• Adjustment recommendations with priority ranking
• Budget impact modeling: total cost of recommended changes
• Equity refresh guidance: vesting cliffs, refresh cadence, retention timing
• Offer structuring: base/equity/bonus mix by company stage and candidate preference

Gate: Recommendations prioritized. Budget impact calculated. Sources documented.

Offer drafting sub-mode:

• Assemble package: base, equity (shares + vesting schedule + valuation method), bonus (target + signing), benefits summary
• Draft offer letter text — include disclaimer: "This draft requires legal review before sending"
• Negotiation guidance for hiring manager: flexibility ranges, non-monetary levers, walk-away points
• Flag compliance requirements by jurisdiction (at-will language, non-compete enforceability, benefits mandates)

---

Mode: ORG-PLANNING

Framework: ASSESS → MODEL → PLAN

Phase 1: ASSESS — Map current organizational state.

| Metric | Healthy Range | Warning Sign | |--------|---------------|--------------| | Span of control | 5-8 direct reports | <3 (too narrow) or >12 (too wide) | | Management layers | 4-6 per 500 people | Excess layers = slow decisions | | IC-to-manager ratio | 6:1 to 10:1 | <4:1 = top-heavy | | Team size | 5-9 people | <4 = fragile, >12 = unmanageable | | Single points of failure | 0 | Any = structural risk |

Gate: Current state mapped. Structural issues identified.

Phase 2: MODEL — Design target state and transition.

• Headcount modeling: role, level, location, cost, timeline, hiring sequence
• Org design options: functional, product, matrix, pod — with trade-offs per option
• Capacity planning: current capacity vs. planned work, gap analysis
• Sequencing: which hires unlock the most capacity or reduce the most risk

Constraint: Never recommend org changes based on individuals ("move Alice because she's difficult") — structure around roles and capabilities (because person-dependent org design creates fragility and masks management problems).

Gate: Target state modeled. Sequencing justified. Budget estimated.

Phase 3: PLAN — Convert to executable hiring roadmap.

• Phased hiring plan: Q1/Q2/Q3/Q4 with roles, cost, dependencies
• Reporting line changes with communication plan
• Risk mitigation: what happens if key hires take longer than planned
• Success metrics: time to productivity, team health scores, delivery velocity

Gate: Roadmap executable. Risks mitigated. Success metrics defined.

People analytics sub-mode:

• Headcount reports: by team, location, level, tenure — snapshot and trend
• Attrition analysis: voluntary/involuntary, regrettable/non-regrettable, by team, trend lines
• Diversity metrics: representation by level/team/function, pipeline diversity, promotion rate parity, pay equity
• Engagement indicators: survey scores, eNPS, participation rates, theme analysis
• Flight risk modeling: below-band compensation + low engagement + tenure inflection points

---

Mode: POLICY

Framework: FIND → EXPLAIN → CAVEAT

1. Search user-provided policy documents or handbook
2. Answer in plain language — no legalese
3. Quote specific policy language with source citation
4. Note exceptions and special cases
5. For legal/compliance questions: "Consult HR or legal directly for your specific situation"

Constraint: Answer only from user-provided policy documents. State when no source is available — do not guess (because fabricated policy guidance creates liability).

---

Error Handling

| Error | Cause | Solution | |-------|-------|----------| | No compensation data | User asks "what should we pay" without data | State limitation explicitly. Offer to analyze user-provided data or recommend public sources (Levels.fyi, Glassdoor, Radford). | | Biased language in output | LLM generates gendered, ageist, or exclusionary phrasing | Run output against references/llm-hr-failure-modes.md bias checklist. Rewrite flagged phrases. | | Jurisdiction unknown | Legal advice requested without location | Ask for jurisdiction before proceeding. Never default to US employment law. | | Confidentiality scope unclear | User shares individual comp/performance data | Confirm intended audience. Remind that HR data is need-to-know. Minimize PII in outputs. | | Template vs. real data confusion | User treats template placeholders as recommendations | Label all templates explicitly: "[PLACEHOLDER — replace with actual data]". | | Policy not found | User asks about policy with no handbook provided | State clearly: no policy source available. Do not fabricate. Suggest uploading handbook. |

---

References

| Reference | When to Load | Content | |-----------|-------------|---------| | references/recruiting.md | RECRUITING, INTERVIEW, ONBOARDING modes | Pipeline stages, velocity metrics, interview frameworks, evaluation rubrics, onboarding checklists | | references/performance-management.md | PERFORMANCE mode | Review structure, calibration methodology, feedback patterns, development planning | | references/compensation.md | COMPENSATION, OFFER modes | Market benchmarking, internal equity analysis, offer structuring, equity modeling | | references/org-planning.md | ORG-PLANNING, PEOPLE-ANALYTICS modes | Headcount modeling, org design principles, capacity planning, people analytics | | references/llm-hr-failure-modes.md | Every mode | Bias detection, fabrication risks, compliance gaps, inappropriate language patterns |