DeepTutor CLI
HKUDS/DeepTutor
Teaches the agent to set up and run DeepTutor from the command line: chat and capabilities, knowledge bases, partners, memory, sessions, notebooks and the server or Web app.
Build an engineering hiring rubric and technical interview scorecard for evaluating software engineers at a specific level.
$ npx skills add mohitagw15856/pm-claude-skills --skill engineering-hiring-rubric -a claude-codeProject install by default; add -g for ~/.claude/skills/.
$ gh skill install mohitagw15856/pm-claude-skills engineering-hiring-rubric --agent claude-codeProject scope by default; add --scope user for a personal install. Needs GitHub CLI 2.90.0 or later (public preview).
$ git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/mohitagw15856/pm-claude-skills.git skills-src && mkdir -p .claude/skills && cp -r skills-src/skills/engineering-hiring-rubric .claude/skills/engineering-hiring-rubric && rm -rf skills-srcUse ~/.claude/skills/ instead of .claude/skills for a personal install. The folder must contain SKILL.md.
Claude Code skills documentation · loads skills from .claude/skills/
Install the "engineering-hiring-rubric" agent skill from https://github.com/mohitagw15856/pm-claude-skills/tree/main/skills/engineering-hiring-rubric into .claude/skills/engineering-hiring-rubric/ in this project. Copy the whole folder (SKILL.md and every file beside it), keep the folder name "engineering-hiring-rubric", then confirm the skill loads.Claude Code copies the folder itself, the same result as the manual copy. Check what it changed before you commit it.
$skill-installer install https://github.com/mohitagw15856/pm-claude-skills/tree/main/skills/engineering-hiring-rubricType this inside Codex. $skill-installer <name> installs a curated skill from openai/skills. The installer writes to $CODEX_HOME/skills (default ~/.codex/skills). Restart Codex if the skill does not show up.
$ npx skills add mohitagw15856/pm-claude-skills --skill engineering-hiring-rubric -a codexProject install goes to .agents/skills/; add -g for ~/.codex/skills/.
$ gh skill install mohitagw15856/pm-claude-skills engineering-hiring-rubric --agent codexProject scope by default (.agents/skills/); add --scope user for a personal install.
$ git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/mohitagw15856/pm-claude-skills.git skills-src && mkdir -p .agents/skills && cp -r skills-src/skills/engineering-hiring-rubric .agents/skills/engineering-hiring-rubric && rm -rf skills-srcUse ~/.agents/skills/ instead of .agents/skills for a personal install.
Codex skills documentation · loads skills from .agents/skills/
Install the "engineering-hiring-rubric" agent skill from https://github.com/mohitagw15856/pm-claude-skills/tree/main/skills/engineering-hiring-rubric into .agents/skills/engineering-hiring-rubric/ in this project. Copy the whole folder (SKILL.md and every file beside it), keep the folder name "engineering-hiring-rubric", then confirm the skill loads.Codex copies the folder itself, the same result as the manual copy. Check what it changed before you commit it.
$ npx skills add mohitagw15856/pm-claude-skills --skill engineering-hiring-rubric -a cursorProject install goes to .agents/skills/; add -g for ~/.cursor/skills/.
$ gh skill install mohitagw15856/pm-claude-skills engineering-hiring-rubric --agent cursorProject scope by default (.agents/skills/); add --scope user for a personal install.
$ git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/mohitagw15856/pm-claude-skills.git skills-src && mkdir -p .cursor/skills && cp -r skills-src/skills/engineering-hiring-rubric .cursor/skills/engineering-hiring-rubric && rm -rf skills-srcUse ~/.cursor/skills/ instead of .cursor/skills for a personal install.
Cursor skills documentation · loads skills from .cursor/skills/, .agents/skills/, .claude/skills/, .codex/skills/
Install the "engineering-hiring-rubric" agent skill from https://github.com/mohitagw15856/pm-claude-skills/tree/main/skills/engineering-hiring-rubric into .cursor/skills/engineering-hiring-rubric/ in this project. Copy the whole folder (SKILL.md and every file beside it), keep the folder name "engineering-hiring-rubric", then confirm the skill loads.Cursor copies the folder itself, the same result as the manual copy. Check what it changed before you commit it.
$ gemini skills install https://github.com/mohitagw15856/pm-claude-skills.git --path skills/engineering-hiring-rubric--scope user (default) or --scope workspace; --path is the subfolder of the repo that holds the skill; --consent skips the security confirmation prompt.
$ npx skills add mohitagw15856/pm-claude-skills --skill engineering-hiring-rubric -a gemini-cliProject install goes to .agents/skills/; add -g for ~/.gemini/skills/.
$ gh skill install mohitagw15856/pm-claude-skills engineering-hiring-rubric --agent gemini-cliProject scope by default (.agents/skills/); add --scope user for a personal install.
$ git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/mohitagw15856/pm-claude-skills.git skills-src && mkdir -p .gemini/skills && cp -r skills-src/skills/engineering-hiring-rubric .gemini/skills/engineering-hiring-rubric && rm -rf skills-srcUse ~/.gemini/skills/ instead of .gemini/skills for a personal install, then run /skills reload.
Gemini CLI skills documentation · loads skills from .gemini/skills/, .agents/skills/
Install the "engineering-hiring-rubric" agent skill from https://github.com/mohitagw15856/pm-claude-skills/tree/main/skills/engineering-hiring-rubric into .gemini/skills/engineering-hiring-rubric/ in this project. Copy the whole folder (SKILL.md and every file beside it), keep the folder name "engineering-hiring-rubric", then confirm the skill loads.Gemini CLI copies the folder itself, the same result as the manual copy. Check what it changed before you commit it.
$ gh skill install mohitagw15856/pm-claude-skills engineering-hiring-rubricInstalls for Copilot at project scope by default; add --scope user for a personal install. Preview a skill first with gh skill preview. Needs GitHub CLI 2.90.0 or later (public preview).
$ npx skills add mohitagw15856/pm-claude-skills --skill engineering-hiring-rubric -a github-copilotProject install goes to .agents/skills/; add -g for ~/.copilot/skills/.
$ git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/mohitagw15856/pm-claude-skills.git skills-src && mkdir -p .github/skills && cp -r skills-src/skills/engineering-hiring-rubric .github/skills/engineering-hiring-rubric && rm -rf skills-srcUse ~/.copilot/skills/ instead of .github/skills for a personal install. Commit .github/skills so cloud agent and code review can use it.
GitHub Copilot skills documentation · loads skills from .github/skills/, .claude/skills/, .agents/skills/
Install the "engineering-hiring-rubric" agent skill from https://github.com/mohitagw15856/pm-claude-skills/tree/main/skills/engineering-hiring-rubric into .github/skills/engineering-hiring-rubric/ in this project. Copy the whole folder (SKILL.md and every file beside it), keep the folder name "engineering-hiring-rubric", then confirm the skill loads.GitHub Copilot copies the folder itself, the same result as the manual copy. Check what it changed before you commit it.
$ npx skills add mohitagw15856/pm-claude-skills --skill engineering-hiring-rubric -a opencodeOpenCode documents no install command of its own. Project install goes to .agents/skills/; add -g for ~/.config/opencode/skills/.
$ gh skill install mohitagw15856/pm-claude-skills engineering-hiring-rubric --agent opencodeProject scope by default (.agents/skills/); add --scope user for a personal install.
$ git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/mohitagw15856/pm-claude-skills.git skills-src && mkdir -p .opencode/skills && cp -r skills-src/skills/engineering-hiring-rubric .opencode/skills/engineering-hiring-rubric && rm -rf skills-srcUse ~/.config/opencode/skills/ instead of .opencode/skills for a personal install.
OpenCode skills documentation · loads skills from .opencode/skills/, .claude/skills/, .agents/skills/
Install the "engineering-hiring-rubric" agent skill from https://github.com/mohitagw15856/pm-claude-skills/tree/main/skills/engineering-hiring-rubric into .opencode/skills/engineering-hiring-rubric/ in this project. Copy the whole folder (SKILL.md and every file beside it), keep the folder name "engineering-hiring-rubric", then confirm the skill loads.OpenCode copies the folder itself, the same result as the manual copy. Check what it changed before you commit it.
engineering-hiring-rubricBuild an engineering hiring rubric and technical interview scorecard for evaluating software engineers at a specific level.
Engineering Hiring Rubric is an agent skill from mohitagw15856/pm-claude-skills. Build an engineering hiring rubric and technical interview scorecard for evaluating software engineers at a specific level. Use when asked to create an interview rubric, design a hiring process, build a technical scorecard, or standardize engineer evaluation. Produces a full interview scorecard, behavioral question bank, technical question set with evaluation criteria, system design rubric, and debrief agenda.
Its SKILL.md is about 5.6k tokens, which your agent loads only when the skill is triggered. It is a single SKILL.md file with no bundled scripts.
It sits in Education, covering Quizzes and assessments. The repository describes itself as: 1255 professional Agent Skills for Claude, ChatGPT, Gemini, Cursor & Codex — PRDs, postmortems, leases, medical bills, layoffs, go-bags, new countries. Plain markdown, MIT, in… The licence is MIT.
9 steps, taken from the step headings in SKILL.md.
Read from SKILL.md and the folder at commit 1cbf1f0. It shows what the files ask for, not the result of running them.
Pre-approves nothing: there is no allowed-tools line, so your agent's usual permission prompts apply.
From allowed-tools in the SKILL.md frontmatter.
Shell commands in SKILL.md call:
goFrom the folder's file list and the shell code blocks in SKILL.md.
No URLs in SKILL.md.
From URLs in SKILL.md, links to its own repository left out.
Names no API keys, tokens, secrets or passwords.
From names ending in _API_KEY, _TOKEN, _SECRET, _KEY or _PASSWORD in SKILL.md.
Engineering Hiring Rubric loads about 5.6k tokens when it runs. Until then it costs about 110 tokens; SKILL.md has 2,469 words of instructions outside code blocks.
Estimates: characters ÷ 4, the usual rule of thumb; real counts depend on the model's tokenizer. Scripts and assets cost tokens only if the agent reads them.
The automated check found no risky patterns in SKILL.md.
Automated static check — not a guarantee. Review scripts before installing. It scans the text of SKILL.md for risky patterns (piping downloads into a shell, reading credential files, hidden Unicode, destructive commands); files beside SKILL.md are not scanned.
The full file from mohitagw15856/pm-claude-skills at commit 1cbf1f0, republished under its MIT licence (© mohitagw15856). 2,469 words, ~5,645 tokens.
.claude/skills/engineering-hiring-rubric/SKILL.md (or your agent's skills folder).Produce a complete hiring rubric and interview scorecard for evaluating software engineers at a specific role and level. The rubric must be specific enough that two interviewers who have never compared notes will score the same candidate within one level of each other. That requires: explicit behavioral anchors (what does "Strong Hire" look like vs. "Hire" for each competency), calibrated technical questions with written evaluation criteria, and a structured debrief format that surfaces signal rather than recency bias. Include calibration notes to help interviewers recognize and counter common evaluation biases.
Ask for these if not already provided:
Role: [e.g., Senior Backend Engineer] Level equivalent: [e.g., L5 / IC4 / Senior] Team: [Team name and one-sentence description of what they build] Tech stack: [Languages and frameworks] Interview loop: [List the rounds in order]
[2–3 sentences describing the scope of work: what systems they'll own, what problems they'll solve, and who they'll work with. Make this specific to the team context provided.]
Define the minimum bar for a Hire recommendation at this level. This is not the ideal candidate description — it is the floor.
| Dimension | [Level] Floor | One Level Below (No Hire) | One Level Above (Stretch) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Technical scope | [e.g., "Owns a service or major feature area end-to-end with minimal guidance"] | [e.g., "Completes well-defined tasks; needs guidance on scope and approach"] | [e.g., "Leads cross-team technical initiatives; sets technical direction"] |
| Problem solving | [e.g., "Breaks ambiguous problems into concrete sub-problems independently"] | [e.g., "Solves defined problems well; struggles with ambiguity"] | [e.g., "Identifies problems others miss; structures organization-level technical challenges"] |
| Code quality | [e.g., "Writes production-ready code; anticipates edge cases; reviewable without significant rework"] | [e.g., "Writes working code that requires significant review feedback"] | [e.g., "Sets code quality standards; designs reusable abstractions adopted by others"] |
| Communication | [e.g., "Communicates technical decisions clearly to peers and stakeholders"] | [e.g., "Communicates well with direct team; struggles with cross-team or stakeholder comms"] | [e.g., "Drives technical consensus across teams; writes documents others reference"] |
| Ownership | [e.g., "Sees work to production; monitors after deploy; follows up on issues proactively"] | [e.g., "Delivers assigned work; escalates issues but doesn't drive them to resolution"] | [e.g., "Owns outcomes across teams; improves team processes and systems beyond their own work"] |
| Round | Format | Duration | Interviewer | Competencies Assessed |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Phone screen | Video call, technical questions | 45 min | [Hiring manager or senior engineer] | Problem solving, communication, basic technical depth |
| Coding interview 1 | Live coding — [platform] | 60 min | [Engineer] | Coding, data structures, code quality |
| Coding interview 2 | Live coding — [platform] | 60 min | [Engineer] | Algorithms, debugging, code quality |
| System design | Whiteboard / shared doc | 60 min | [Senior/Staff engineer] | System design, scalability, technical communication |
| Behavioral | Structured interview | 45 min | [Hiring manager] | Ownership, collaboration, growth mindset |
| [Optional] Take-home | Asynchronous project | [X hours] | [Reviewer] | Code quality, thoroughness, real-world problem solving |
Interview coverage matrix: Each competency dimension must be assessed by at least 2 independent interviewers.
| Competency | Phone Screen | Coding 1 | Coding 2 | System Design | Behavioral |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Coding | ○ | ● | ● | ○ | |
| System design | ○ | ● | |||
| Problem solving | ● | ● | ● | ● | |
| Code quality | ● | ● | |||
| Communication | ● | ● | ● | ● | ● |
| Ownership | ○ | ○ | ● | ||
| Debugging | ● | ● |
● = Primary signal ○ = Secondary signal
Choose 1–2 problems per coding round. Problems should be solvable in 30–40 minutes with the remaining time for discussion and follow-ups. Prefer problems with multiple solution tiers so you can see how far candidates take their thinking.
Problem: [Title]
Prompt (read to candidate):
[Problem statement — be specific. Include constraints (input size, value ranges). Avoid ambiguity that tests problem-reading rather than problem-solving.]
Example:
Given a list of integers representing stock prices at each minute of a trading day, return the maximum profit you could achieve by making exactly one buy and one sell. You may not sell before you buy.
Clarifying questions a strong candidate will ask:
Solution tiers:
| Tier | Approach | Time Complexity | Space Complexity | Signals |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Baseline | [Brute force — O(n²) nested loop] | O(n²) | O(1) | Can solve the problem; understands correctness |
| Expected | [Single pass, tracking min price seen so far] | O(n) | O(1) | Strong problem solver; explains tradeoff |
| Strong | [Generalizes to k transactions, or extends to cooldown variant without prompting] | O(n) | O(1) | Staff-level generalization thinking |
Follow-up questions:
Evaluation rubric for this problem:
| Signal | Strong Hire | Hire | No Hire |
|---|---|---|---|
| Problem comprehension | Asks 1–2 clarifying questions immediately; identifies edge cases before coding | Understands the problem after 1 prompt; misses 1–2 edge cases | Misunderstands the problem or requires repeated clarification |
| Solution quality | O(n) solution; clean code; handles all edge cases | O(n) with hints; code is readable but has minor issues | O(n²) with hints, or correct solution with significant issues |
| Code quality | Well-named variables; logical structure; would pass code review | Functional but verbose or inconsistently named | Hard to follow; would require significant review feedback |
| Communication | Narrates thinking throughout; explains complexity; self-corrects | Explains solution when asked; answers follow-ups well | Silent during coding; unable to explain their approach |
| Follow-ups | Extends solution confidently; identifies further improvements | Handles follow-ups with moderate prompting | Unable to extend or explain tradeoffs |
At [Level], expect the candidate to:
Question: "Design [a URL shortener / a rate limiter / a notification service / a ride-matching system — choose one relevant to the team's domain]."
Evaluation dimensions:
| Dimension | What to assess | Strong Hire | Hire | No Hire |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Requirements clarification | Does the candidate ask before designing? | Asks scope, scale, SLA, and key use cases before drawing anything | Asks some questions; may miss scale or SLA | Starts designing immediately without clarifying |
| High-level design | Can they describe the major components? | Clear component breakdown with justified choices; covers data flow | Reasonable breakdown; may overcomplicate or undercomplicate | Missing key components or cannot explain data flow |
| Data model | Can they design a schema or data structure for the system? | Models the core entities with normalization/denormalization tradeoffs discussed | Reasonable schema; may miss indexing or partitioning needs | Cannot model the data or produces clearly wrong schema |
| Scalability | Can they identify and address bottlenecks? | Identifies bottlenecks proactively; proposes horizontal scaling, caching, or sharding as appropriate | Discusses scaling when prompted; reasonable solutions | Cannot identify bottlenecks or proposes solutions that don't match the scale |
| Failure handling | Do they think about what happens when things break? | Proactively discusses failure modes: single points of failure, retry logic, idempotency | Discusses failure when prompted; identifies some failure modes | Does not think about failure; assumes happy path |
| Communication | Is the design explained clearly? | Could run this meeting with a team of engineers at a real company | Clear enough to follow; some gaps in explanation | Difficult to follow; interviewer cannot understand the design |
Use these to probe depth after the candidate presents their design:
Map every question to a competency. Ask 4–6 questions per behavioral round using STAR format (Situation, Task, Action, Result). Do not ask leading questions.
"Tell me about a time you owned something end-to-end — from design through production monitoring. What did you do when something went wrong after launch?"
"Describe a project that was significantly delayed or failed. What was your role, and what did you take responsibility for?"
"Tell me about a significant technical decision you made. What options did you consider, and how did you decide?"
"Describe a time you had to push back on a technical direction — either from management or from peers. What happened?"
"Tell me about a time you had to explain a complex technical concept to a non-technical stakeholder. How did you approach it?"
"Describe a situation where you and a peer strongly disagreed on an approach. How did it resolve?"
"What is a significant technical mistake you made in the last two years? What did you learn from it?"
"How do you stay current in [relevant technical area]? Give me a specific example of something you learned recently and applied."
Complete one scorecard per interview round. Collect all scorecards before the debrief.
INTERVIEW SCORECARD
===================
Candidate: ______________________
Interviewer: ______________________
Round: ______________________
Date: ______________________
Interview format: ______________________
COMPETENCY RATINGS
Rate each dimension independently. Do not average.
Scale: 1 = Strong No Hire | 2 = No Hire | 3 = Hire | 4 = Strong Hire
1 2 3 4 Notes
Coding / Technical skill [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] ___________________________
Problem solving [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] ___________________________
System design [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] ___________________________
Code quality [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] ___________________________
Debugging [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] ___________________________
Communication [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] ___________________________
Ownership [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] ___________________________
Collaboration [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] ___________________________
SPECIFIC EVIDENCE
What did the candidate do or say that drove your rating?
(Required — write observable behaviors, not impressions)
Strongest signal (positive):
___________________________________________________________________________
Strongest concern or gap:
___________________________________________________________________________
OVERALL RECOMMENDATION
[ ] Strong Hire [ ] Hire [ ] No Hire [ ] Strong No Hire
OVERALL RECOMMENDATION RATIONALE
(Required — 3–5 sentences minimum. State your recommendation, the evidence
that supports it, and the specific gap or risk if not a Strong Hire)
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
Level signal: This candidate demonstrated [ L_ / L_ ] level behaviors.
SHOULD INTERVIEWERS DISCUSS BEFORE DEBRIEF?
[ ] No — I have a clear independent signal
[ ] Yes — I need context on [specific area] to complete my assessment| Recommendation | Meaning | When to use |
|---|---|---|
| Strong Hire | Confident the candidate will exceed the level bar and be a high performer on the team | Evidence across 3+ competencies at above-bar level; no significant concerns |
| Hire | Confident the candidate meets the level bar; will perform well | Meets bar on all must-have competencies; may have 1 area to develop |
| No Hire | Does not meet the level bar | Below bar on 1+ must-have competency, or gap too large to close quickly |
| Strong No Hire | Clear mismatch — well below the bar, or a specific disqualifying signal | Significant gaps across multiple competencies, or a values/behavior concern |
Must-hire competencies for [Role] at [Level]: [List 3–4 competencies where a No Hire score on any one of them means the overall recommendation must be No Hire, regardless of performance elsewhere. Example: "Coding and System Design are must-hire competencies for a Senior Backend Engineer. Strong performance on Behavioral dimensions cannot compensate for a No Hire on Coding."]
Debrief rule: A Strong Hire can override one No Hire only if: (a) the No Hire is not on a must-hire competency, and (b) the Strong Hire interviewer can articulate why the concern is not disqualifying. A Strong No Hire cannot be overridden — escalate to hiring manager.
Run the debrief before scorecards are shared verbally. Everyone submits a written scorecard first.
DEBRIEF AGENDA — [Candidate Name]
Duration: 45 minutes
Facilitator: [Hiring Manager]
0:00 – 0:05 SCORECARD REVIEW
Each interviewer states their overall recommendation only (no rationale yet).
Facilitator notes alignment and disagreements on whiteboard/doc.
0:05 – 0:15 EVIDENCE ROUND
Go around the table. Each interviewer shares:
- Their strongest positive signal (observable behavior, not impression)
- Their biggest concern (observable behavior, not impression)
No discussion yet — just evidence gathering.
0:15 – 0:30 DISCUSS DISAGREEMENTS
Address only the competency dimensions where interviewers disagree.
Anchor discussion on: "What did you observe?" not "What do you think?"
If interviewers assessed different competencies, disagreement may reflect
insufficient signal — note this.
0:30 – 0:40 DECISION
Reach a decision on overall recommendation.
If consensus: state the recommendation and rationale.
If not consensus: hiring manager makes the call and states why.
0:40 – 0:45 PROCESS NOTES
- Were any questions unclear or hard to compare across candidates?
- Any bias signals observed during the debrief? (see Section 9)
- Feedback to improve the process for next time.Brief every interviewer on these before they conduct their first interview for this role.
| Bias | How it manifests | Counter-measure |
|---|---|---|
| Halo effect | Strong performance in round 1 colors ratings in round 2 | Submit scorecard before reading others; rate each competency independently |
| Similarity bias | "I liked them" correlates with "they think like me" | Require observable evidence for every rating; check: "Is this a signal about their ability or their similarity to me?" |
| Recency bias | Final impression dominates overall rating | Take notes during the interview; write evidence immediately after; debrief uses written evidence, not memory |
| Expectation anchoring | First interviewer's opinion anchors all others | No verbal discussion between interviewers before debrief; written scorecards submitted before debrief starts |
| Culture fit as cover | "Not a culture fit" without specific behavioral evidence | "Culture fit" is not a valid dimension on this scorecard; use Collaboration and Communication with evidence |
| Credential bias | Degree or previous employer overweights rating | Do not list educational background in pre-interview briefing documents; focus on demonstrated behaviors |
| Confidence ≠ Competence | Articulate candidates rated higher regardless of correctness | Grade the answer quality, not the delivery style; use written rubrics per question |
© mohitagw15856, MIT. Rendered from Markdown: HTML in the file is shown as text, images as links, and headings moved down two levels. Raw file
Just SKILL.md in skills/engineering-hiring-rubric of mohitagw15856/pm-claude-skills.
Open the folder on GitHubat commit 1cbf1f0
Engineering Hiring Rubric next to the 5 skills that share the most tags, products or categories with it. Stars are the repository's; “used in” counts other GitHub owners with a copy.
| Skill | Stars | Used in | Tokens | Auto-check | Licence | Repo updated |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Engineering Hiring Rubric this skillmohitagw15856/pm-claude-skills | 1.4k | — | ~5.6k | Automated safety check: Pass | MIT | |
| DeepTutor CLIHKUDS/DeepTutor | 41k | — | ~2.8k | Automated safety check: Pass | Apache-2.0 | |
| AI Engineering Placement Quizrohitg00/ai-engineering-from-scratch | 67k | — | ~2k | Automated safety check: Pass | MIT | |
| Codebase to Coursezarazhangrui/codebase-to-course | 5.7k | — | ~4.4k | Automated safety check: Pass | None | |
| AI Engineering Phase Quizrohitg00/ai-engineering-from-scratch | 67k | — | ~2.1k | Automated safety check: Pass | MIT | |
| Scholar EvaluationK-Dense-AI/claude-scientific-writer | 2.4k | 2 repos | ~2.9k | Automated safety check: Notes | MIT |
HKUDS/DeepTutor
Teaches the agent to set up and run DeepTutor from the command line: chat and capabilities, knowledge bases, partners, memory, sessions, notebooks and the server or Web app.
rohitg00/ai-engineering-from-scratch
Runs a 10-question quiz across five areas to place a learner in the AI Engineering from Scratch curriculum, so they skip what they already know.
zarazhangrui/codebase-to-course
Turns a codebase into an interactive single-page HTML course for non-technical learners, with scroll modules, animated diagrams, quizzes and plain-English code translations.
rohitg00/ai-engineering-from-scratch
Quizzes you on a completed phase of the AI Engineering from Scratch course, taking a phase number or name and mapping it to that phase's directory.
K-Dense-AI/claude-scientific-writer
Provide qualitative-first, evidence-traceable developmental review of scholarly works and audit low-stakes research-assessment rubrics with optional local quality controls.
guanyang/open-agent-hub
This skill should be used when building agent evaluation systems: deterministic checks, regression suites, multi-dimensional rubrics, quality gates, production monitoring, baseline comparison, and…
mohitagw15856/pm-claude-skills
Compare the total cost of car ownership across buy-new, buy-used, lease, and keep-your-current-car — depreciation, insurance, maintenance ramp, and fuel over a real horizon, not just the monthly…
mohitagw15856/pm-claude-skills
Build a customer health scorecard for a specific account. An agent skill from mohitagw15856/pm-claude-skills.
mohitagw15856/pm-claude-skills
Compute who gets what at each exit price from a cap table — liquidation preferences, conversion points, and where the founders' share collapses.
mohitagw15856/pm-claude-skills
Apply prioritisation frameworks (RICE, MoSCoW, Kano, ICE, Opportunity Scoring) to rank features and backlog items.
mohitagw15856/pm-claude-skills
Compute a financial-independence (FIRE) target and years-to-reach with every assumption labeled as an assumption — plus a sensitivity table instead of a single false-precision answer.
mohitagw15856/pm-claude-skills
Derive a freelance day/hourly rate backwards from target income, honest billable utilization, overhead, and the self-employment tax premium — the arithmetic that proves a rate is not salary÷2000.
Categories
Build an engineering hiring rubric and technical interview scorecard for evaluating software engineers at a specific level. Engineering Hiring Rubric is an agent skill from mohitagw15856/pm-claude-skills. Build an engineering hiring rubric and technical interview scorecard for evaluating software engineers at a specific level.
Engineering Hiring Rubric fits situations like: asked to create an interview rubric; design a hiring process; build a technical scorecard; standardize engineer evaluation.
Run `npx skills add mohitagw15856/pm-claude-skills --skill engineering-hiring-rubric -a claude-code`. Or copy the skill folder (skills/engineering-hiring-rubric in mohitagw15856/pm-claude-skills) into .claude/skills/engineering-hiring-rubric in your project. Claude Code loads it when a task matches its description.
Run `npx skills add mohitagw15856/pm-claude-skills --skill engineering-hiring-rubric -a codex`. Or copy the skill folder (skills/engineering-hiring-rubric in mohitagw15856/pm-claude-skills) into .agents/skills/engineering-hiring-rubric in your project. Codex loads it when a task matches its description.
Cursor, Gemini CLI, GitHub Copilot and OpenCode also load SKILL.md folders. With the skills CLI, run `npx skills add mohitagw15856/pm-claude-skills --skill engineering-hiring-rubric -a cursor` (or -a gemini-cli, github-copilot or opencode for the others). To copy it by hand, put the folder in .cursor/skills/engineering-hiring-rubric, .gemini/skills/engineering-hiring-rubric, .github/skills/engineering-hiring-rubric and .opencode/skills/engineering-hiring-rubric in your project.
Going by SKILL.md and its folder, Engineering Hiring Rubric needs the command-line tools its instructions call (go).
SKILL.md contains no URLs. Any network use would come from the scripts or tools the agent runs. This is read from the text; nothing was executed.
Our automated static check of SKILL.md found no risky patterns, such as piping downloads into a shell, reading credential files or hidden Unicode. It is not a guarantee. Review the folder before installing.
Engineering Hiring Rubric is published under the MIT licence (the repository's licence). It allows redistribution, so the full SKILL.md is shown on this page.
About 5.6k tokens (SKILL.md is roughly 23k characters). Agents keep only the skill's name and description in context until a task matches; then they load SKILL.md in full.
Skills that share tags, products or a category with Engineering Hiring Rubric: DeepTutor CLI (HKUDS/DeepTutor, 41k stars), AI Engineering Placement Quiz (rohitg00/ai-engineering-from-scratch, 67k stars), Codebase to Course (zarazhangrui/codebase-to-course, 5.7k stars) and AI Engineering Phase Quiz (rohitg00/ai-engineering-from-scratch, 67k stars). The comparison table on this page puts their stars, adoption, token cost, safety result and licence side by side.
mohitagw15856 (a GitHub user) maintains it in mohitagw15856/pm-claude-skills, which has 1,434 GitHub stars. The repository holds 1,348 skills in this directory. The repository was last updated on October 9, 2026.
Source: mohitagw15856/pm-claude-skills on GitHub. Facts on this page come from the repository at the commit we read; the author's words are quoted as theirs.