Sanity-check a hire before you offer.
The pattern that surfaces the concerns you know but haven't said out loud — the ones that will matter in six months if you ignore them now.
You're about to make an offer. The interviews went well. On paper it's a fit. But you have a lingering unease and you're not sure if it's rational. This prompt pulls the unease into words before you send the offer.
THE PROMPT
I'm about to make an offer to [CANDIDATE] for [ROLE]. Paste the interview feedback (from all interviewers), what stood out about them, and any lingering unease I have below. Return this analysis: **Where the interviewers actually agree** Not the summary of feedback — where they converge. If 4 of 5 interviewers named a specific strength, that's a strong signal. If they diverge on core traits, that's information too. **Where the interviewers actually disagree** The gaps in feedback. If the tech lead loves them and design has reservations, that's not neutral — that's the tension I'll be managing for months. Name it. **The unease, unpacked** Take my stated concern seriously. Restate it in the specific form that would actually cause a problem. If I said "I'm worried they're too intense for our culture", what specifically will that look like on Tuesday of week 4? **The reference check I haven't done yet** Not a generic "call references" — the specific back-channel call. Which former colleague of theirs would tell me the thing I most need to know? If I don't know one, name the shape of person I should find. **Is the offer right?** Direct answer. Yes / no / conditional. If conditional, name the specific condition (e.g., "yes if you re-align on scope of role during the offer conversation, no otherwise"). No hedging. If you don't have enough information to answer, say what specific information you'd need. Context: [PASTE INTERVIEW FEEDBACK + UNEASE]
**Where interviewers agree**
5/5 named technical depth. 4/5 named calm in a hard problem. Nobody named anything about how they'll be with less-senior teammates — that's a gap worth noting.
**Where interviewers disagree**
The tech lead loves them; design and PM both used the phrase "will need adjustment" without elaborating. When the same phrase shows up in two independent write-ups from cross-functional interviewers, it usually means "was a little dismissive of our discipline". Worth asking both directly what they meant.
**The unease, unpacked**
You said "I'm worried they'll be too intense". What that likely looks like: Tuesday week 4, they push back sharply on a design decision in a way that reads as senior-splaining to Sam (design lead). Sam messages you privately. You spend the next 3 months mediating.
**The reference check I haven't done yet**
The person to call is not on the resume. It's a mid-level engineer who worked *under* them at their last role — not a peer or a manager. Peers describe their strengths, managers describe their outputs, reports describe how they treat people who can't push back. If you can find one, that's the call to make.
**Is the offer right?**
Conditional. Yes if you: (1) do the reference call with a former report before offering, (2) have an explicit conversation in the offer call about how they'll partner with design + PM specifically, and (3) confirm they know the role is not just "senior IC" but "senior IC who mentors two mid-level engineers".