# Reference Check

> Verify what a candidate claimed, without turning a reference into a character poll.

- Skill: `tinyhumansai/reference-check-2` (Agent Skill)
- Install (CLI): `npx skillmds@latest add tinyhumansai/reference-check-2`
- Raw SKILL.md: https://api.skillmd.com/api/skills/tinyhumansai/reference-check-2/raw
- Safety review: pending (external: skill-scanner PASS, skillspector PASS)
- Works with: Claude Code, Claude.ai, OpenAI Codex
- Category: Coding & Dev Tools
- Author: tinyhumansai (https://skillmd.com/u/tinyhumansai)
- Updated: 2026-09-22
- Page: https://skillmd.com/skills/tinyhumansai/reference-check-2

---


# Reference Check

Check specific claims. A general question about somebody produces a general
answer, and general answers about people are close to worthless.

## When to use

- An offer is close and a must-have rests on something only a former colleague
  could confirm.
- A scorecard flagged a gap that a reference could actually close.

## Steps

1. **Decide what you are checking** before the call, from `candidates.gaps` —
   one or two specific claims, named.
2. **Ask about behaviour in situations,** not about qualities. "What did they do
   when the migration failed" rather than "are they resilient".
3. **Ask what the reference actually saw.** Second-hand impressions get repeated
   with the confidence of first-hand ones.
4. **Do not ask anything you could not ask the candidate,** and nothing touching
   a protected characteristic. This is a legal boundary as well as an ethical
   one.
5. **Record what was said** on the candidate row as evidence, in the reference's
   words. Not your impression of the tone.
6. **Weigh it as one input.** A reference contradicting a strong interview
   signal is a reason to probe further, not to reverse a decision on its own.

## Output

Evidence recorded against the specific gaps it was meant to close. If the check
did not close them, say so — an inconclusive reference is a result, and the
hiring decision is the operator's either way.