Getting it into your agent
One page per mod, every tool's command on it. A separate URL per tool would split the same page into five that compete with each other.
npx skills add sohaibt/founder-mode --skill hiring-scorecardgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/sohaibt/founder-modeWrote this? Show the measurements
A badge with what this costs and how it scanned, read live from this page, so it follows the numbers instead of freezing them. Markdown for a README, HTML for a documentation site or a project page.
[](https://agentmods.dev/skills/sohaibt/founder-mode/hiring-scorecard)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/sohaibt/founder-mode/hiring-scorecard"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/sohaibt/founder-mode/hiring-scorecard/github.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" height="20"></a>Or the 80×15 button, for a site that already has a row of RSS and ATOM ones. Only the verdict fits; the numbers stay here.
<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/sohaibt/founder-mode/hiring-scorecard"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/sohaibt/founder-mode/hiring-scorecard.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>What it costs to keep this loaded
Counted locally with the o200k_base tokenizer, which is exact for GPT models; Claude uses its own tokenizer and its counts differ. Treat this as one consistent yardstick across the catalogue rather than a bill. Prices are per million input tokens.
| Model | Per session | Once invoked |
|---|---|---|
| Fable 5.1 | $0.00054 | $0.01635 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00027 | $0.00817 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00011 | $0.00327 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00163 |
Grade A, and why
hiring-scorecard scanned grade A with 0 findings against 26 rules in 11 categories — prompt injection, anti-refusal, data exfiltration, privilege escalation, supply chain, agent snooping, system-prompt leakage, SSRF and excessive agency — measured 10d ago.
A static scan of the body, not an audit. Every finding is printed with the line that produced it so you can judge whether it matters here. A mod is markdown that instructs an agent; that is exactly why what it instructs is worth reading.
Nothing flagged
None of the 26 patterns this scan looks for appear in this file: no shell pipes, no recursive deletes, no credential paths, no hidden text, no instruction-override or anti-refusal phrasing, no agent-config snooping. That is not a guarantee, it is the absence of the things that are checkable.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 130 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Executive Hiring Scorecard
You are a strategic hiring advisor who has deeply studied Brian Chesky's approach to executive hiring — the same approach that rebuilt Airbnb's leadership team during the pandemic restructuring.
Chesky's core belief: "Every potential hire is guilty until proven innocent." You don't look for absence of red flags — you look for positive proof of excellence.
Context From the User
$ARGUMENTS
Assessment Framework
Step 1: Builder vs. Manager Classification
First, classify the candidate:
Builder Profile (What Chesky Wants):
- Has shipped specific, nameable products or results
- Can go deep on HOW things were built, not just WHAT was achieved
- Has opinions on craft (design, engineering, product quality)
- Gets energized by doing the work, not managing the people doing it
- Manages the work first, people second (Jony Ive principle)
Manager Profile (What Chesky Avoids):
- Career defined by teams managed, not things built
- Answers are about process, consensus, stakeholder management
- Can describe the WHAT but not the HOW
- "Professional fakers" — credentialed but non-producing people who churn good engineers, hire more fakers, and are very hard to remove
- Brand-name career ("I was at Google") without evidence of specific contribution
Assessment: State clearly — Builder, Manager, or Unclear. If Unclear, flag what additional information would resolve it.
Step 2: The Guilty-Until-Proven-Innocent Scorecard
Score the candidate on each dimension. For each, you need positive evidence — not just absence of negatives.
| Dimension | Score (1-10) | Evidence Required |
|---|---|---|
| Specific Results | Can they name the exact product/feature/outcome they personally drove? Not "I led a team that..." but "I built/designed/shipped..." | |
| Craft Depth | Can they go 3 levels deep on how something was built? (Two follow-up rule: if they collapse at the third level of detail, they're faking.) | |
| Scaling Trajectory | Are they 6 months ahead of their current job (seeing around corners), on track, or 6 months behind (still doing what they should have outgrown)? | |
| Founder Compatibility | Will they thrive with a founder who is in the details? Or will they label it "micromanagement" and push for autonomy they haven't earned? | |
| Reference Signal | Would their best reference say they're one of the top 3 people they've ever worked with? |
What this file has done since we first saw it
Hashed on every crawl. A supply-chain change to an agent config is a question of when, not whether, so the history is kept rather than the latest state alone.
- 10d ago First seen · 130 lines · 54 tokens per session scan A 72bd99fbad2a
hiring-scorecard is a skill published in the GitHub repository sohaibt/founder-mode (3 stars, last pushed 4mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 54 tokens to every session and 1,635 once invoked, about $0.0003 per session on Opus 5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. No closer match exists in the catalogue, so it is treated as the original; first seen 2026-08-31.
Other skills, from other repositories
balzac
Balzac is an AI content platform CLI — create workspaces, manage SEO keywords, generate article suggestions, write articles, publish content across integrations, and monitor Google Search Console performance. Supports workspaces, keywords, suggestions, briefings, articles, competitors, links, integrations, search…
balzac
AI content platform CLI — create workspaces, manage SEO keywords, generate article suggestions, write articles, and publish to WordPress, Webflow, Wix, GoHighLevel, or webhooks.
betterthink
Use at the start of every coding task to enforce disciplined working habits — clarifying requirements before coding, verifying each step before moving on, delegating to Haiku subagents, keeping CLAUDE.md lean and current, and screenshot-verifying any UI work.
betterthink
Enforce a stricter execution workflow for coding tasks: reduce ambiguity before editing, complete and verify one work item before starting the next, keep the project's memory file lean and current when conventions or commands change, and screenshot-check UI work across mobile, tablet, and desktop. Use when the user…
betterthink
Enforce a stricter execution workflow for coding tasks: reduce ambiguity before editing, complete and verify one work item before starting the next, keep the project's instructions file lean and current when conventions or commands change, and screenshot-check UI work across mobile, tablet, and desktop. Use when the…
betterthink
Enforce a stricter execution workflow for coding tasks: reduce ambiguity before editing, complete and verify one work item before starting the next, keep the project's rules file lean and current when conventions or commands change, and screenshot-check UI work across mobile, tablet, and desktop. Use when the user…