dazuck Finding Great Candidates
Goal: Identify candidates we'd be thrilled to have on the team. Not "can do the job" — candidates we're excited about.
"Our first 100 people are our cultural co-founders."
What Makes Someone Great (Universal Traits)
These traits apply to EVERY role. A candidate missing any of these is unlikely to be great.
1. High Agency
What it is: Takes initiative. Makes things happen. Doesn't wait for permission or perfect conditions.
How to spot it:
- Started something from nothing (project, company, community, initiative)
- Identified problems and solved them without being asked
- Phrases like "I noticed X wasn't working, so I..." or "I proposed..."
- Built things with limited resources
- Career moves that show they created opportunity vs. waited for it
Red flags:
- Passive language ("I was assigned to...", "My manager asked me to...")
- No examples of self-initiated work
- Lots of "we" with no clear individual contribution
- Job history of only joining established teams/processes
2. Grit & Resilience
What it is: Perseveres through hard things. Doesn't quit when it gets difficult.
How to spot it:
- Shipped something hard (long timeline, technical challenges, organizational friction)
- Stayed with a problem until solved vs. moving on when stuck
- Built something despite obstacles (funding, team, technical, market)
- Career shows persistence (didn't job-hop at first sign of difficulty)
- Specific stories of overcoming setbacks
Red flags:
- Lots of short stints without clear upward moves
- Vague explanations for leaving ("it wasn't a good fit")
- No examples of pushing through difficulty
- Blame-shifting to circumstances
3. Evidence of Impact
What it is: Demonstrable results. Outcomes, not just activities.
How to spot it:
- Metrics at ANY scale: "10x'd revenue", "reduced costs 60%", "shipped to 5M users"
- Promotions and increasing scope over time (trajectory)
- Concrete examples: "built X which did Y"
- Results even in resource-constrained environments
- Would their bosses rate them 8+ and hire them again?
Red flags:
- Vague: "worked on", "contributed to", "helped with"
- No metrics even for senior roles
- Flat trajectory (same level/scope over years)
- Titles without corresponding impact stories
4. Technical Depth
What it is: Everyone should code, build, or have deep technical understanding.
How to spot it:
- GitHub/portfolio with real projects
- Technical blog posts or writing
- Can explain complex systems simply
- Specific technical choices and tradeoffs mentioned
- For non-eng: deep understanding of how things work, technical curiosity
Red flags:
- Avoids technical detail
- Can't explain their technical work
- No evidence of building things
- Relies entirely on others for technical decisions
5. AI-Native
What it is: Uses AI tools daily, understands implications, sees opportunities.
How to spot it:
- Mentions specific tools: Claude, ChatGPT, Cursor, Copilot
- Built something with AI or integrated AI into workflow
- Understands AI capabilities and limitations
- Excited about AI, not fearful
- Uses AI to accelerate their own work
Red flags:
- No mention of AI tools
- Seems unaware of AI capabilities
- Treats AI as novelty vs. fundamental shift
- Behind the curve on modern tools
6. Communication Excellence
What it is: Writes clearly, explains complex ideas simply, collaborates well.
How to spot it (their APPLICATION is a sample!):
- Clear, structured writing
- Gets to the point
- Explains technical concepts accessibly
- Good questions in interviews
- Public writing/speaking if available
Red flags:
- Rambling or unclear application
- Can't articulate their own work
- Jargon-heavy without substance
- Poor writing quality
7. World-Class at Something
What it is: Top 1% in at least one domain. Demonstrable excellence.
How to spot it:
- Recognized expertise: patents, publications, talks, awards
- Deep mastery evident in how they discuss their domain
- Built something impressive in their area
- Others seek them out for this expertise
- "The person you call" for X
Red flags:
- Average across the board
- No area of clear strength
- Jack of all trades, master of none
- Can't point to what they're best at
8. Interesting Person
What it is: Curious, diverse interests, unique perspective. Someone you'd want at dinner.
How to spot it:
- Unusual background or path
- Hobbies/interests outside work
- Asks interesting questions
- Learns continuously
- Brings different perspective to problems
Red flags:
- One-dimensional
- No interests outside work
- Generic responses
- Nothing memorable about them
Role-Specific Traits
Beyond universal traits, each role has specific requirements:
Engineering Roles (Full-Stack, Software, AI Lead)
- Shipped production code at scale
- System design thinking
- Code quality/testing discipline
- Open source contributions (bonus)
- Technical leadership/mentorship (for senior)
AI Application Engineer
- Deep in AI research community
- Translates research → shipped features
- Built AI evaluation/experimentation systems
- Rapid prototyping ability
- Stays current with latest developments
Community Manager
- Always-on presence and reliability
- Crisis management experience
- Multi-channel management (Discord, Telegram, X)
- Clear, accurate communication under pressure
- Domain community experience (web3, developer, B2B, etc.)
Program / Event Manager
- Public-facing comfort and energy
- Operational excellence
- Event/program management at scale
- Builds playbooks and systems
- AI-powered automation of workflows
Technical Account Manager
- Technical depth + customer empathy
- Problem-solving under pressure
- Clear communication of technical concepts
- Project management discipline
- Relationship building
The Screening Process
Step 1: Run the Screen
If you have a screening tool (e.g., a Greenhouse integration script):
cd [YOUR_SCREENING_TOOL_PATH] && npm run screen -- --days-back 1 --min-score 70
Common variations:
# Last 7 days, specific role
npm run screen -- --days-back 7 --job-id [JOB_ID]
# Higher bar (80+), tag in Greenhouse
npm run screen -- --min-score 80 --tag-greenhouse
# All options
npm run screen -- --days-back 7 --min-score 75 --tag-greenhouse --send-slack
If you don't have a screening tool, pull candidates from Greenhouse manually or via the Greenhouse API and feed them to Claude for evaluation using the framework below.
Step 2: Read the Output
cat [YOUR_SCREENING_TOOL_PATH]/output/daily-digest-$(date +%Y-%m-%d).md
Step 3: Deep Dive on Top Candidates
For anyone scoring 75+, provide deeper analysis with links always included:
## [Name] — [Score]/100
**Links**: [Greenhouse](https://app4.greenhouse.io/people/[CANDIDATE_ID]/applications/[APP_ID]/redesign) | [LinkedIn](URL or "Not provided")
### Universal Traits Assessment
| Trait | Signal | Evidence |
| ------------- | -------- | ------------------------------- |
| High Agency | ✅/⚠️/🚩 | [specific quote or observation] |
| Grit | ✅/⚠️/🚩 | [specific quote or observation] |
| Impact | ✅/⚠️/🚩 | [specific quote or observation] |
| Technical | ✅/⚠️/🚩 | [specific quote or observation] |
| AI-Native | ✅/⚠️/🚩 | [specific quote or observation] |
| Communication | ✅/⚠️/🚩 | [specific quote or observation] |
| World-Class | ✅/⚠️/🚩 | [specific quote or observation] |
| Interesting | ✅/⚠️/🚩 | [specific quote or observation] |
### Role-Specific Fit
[Assessment against role requirements]
### Why We'd Be Thrilled
- [Specific exceptional signals]
### Questions to Probe
- [Specific areas needing verification]
### Verdict
[Must Interview / Worth Exploring / Pass]
Step 4: Summary Table with Links
Always conclude with a summary table including clickable links:
## Summary
| Candidate | Score | Verdict | Greenhouse | LinkedIn |
| --------- | ------- | --------- | ----------- | --------------------- |
| [Name] | [Score] | [Verdict] | [View](URL) | [Profile](URL) or N/A |
Job IDs
Add your Greenhouse job IDs here to filter screening by role:
| ID | Role |
|---|---|
| [JOB_ID_1] | [Role Name] |
| [JOB_ID_2] | [Role Name] |
| [JOB_ID_3] | Open Application |
The Bar
"90% confidence that this person can do a job only 10% of candidates could do."
We're not asking "can they do the job?" We're asking "would we be thrilled to work with them every day?"
- Must Interview: Multiple strong signals across traits, world-class at something, high skill AND will
- Worth Exploring: Promising but questions remain — needs interview to resolve
- Pass: Missing must-haves, too many red flags, or just "fine"
When in doubt, pass. Better to miss someone good than hire someone mediocre.