Turning a job description into clear hiring criteria

The job description is not the hiring criteria

A job description is written to attract people. Hiring criteria are written to evaluate them. Teams often use the first as the second, and the result is predictable: every interviewer weighs a different subset of a long list, "culture fit" fills the gaps, and the debrief turns into a comparison of impressions.

Converting a job description into explicit criteria takes an hour or two and pays back in every interview. It forces the hiring team to agree on what the role actually requires before anyone meets a candidate — which is the only point at which that agreement is easy.

Tier every requirement

Start by listing every requirement in the description, then sort each one into a tier. Be honest; most lists are heavier at the top than the role justifies.

• Critical — the person cannot succeed in the role in the first six months without this. If a candidate lacks it, you would not hire them regardless of other strengths. Keep this short; three to six items is typical.
• Important — materially affects performance, but a strong candidate could close the gap on the job or substitute closely related experience.
• Preferred — genuinely useful, but distinguishes between good candidates rather than qualifying them.

A useful test for the critical tier: imagine an otherwise excellent candidate who lacks the item. If the team would say "let's talk anyway," it isn't critical.

Tiering also improves the job description itself. Separating "required" from "nice to have" in the posting helps candidates self-select accurately, and tends to widen the pool of qualified people who apply.

Remove vague requirements

Phrases like "strong communicator," "self-starter," "fast-paced environment" and "rockstar" can't be evaluated consistently, because every interviewer fills in their own meaning. Rewrite each into something observable, or remove it.

These rewrites are illustrative; the right version depends on your role. The principle is that each criterion should describe something a person has done or can demonstrate — not a trait you hope they have.

Year requirements deserve particular care. They are a proxy for capability and can screen out people who developed it faster or by a different route. Where you can, describe the capability itself.

Define evidence you can verify

For each critical and important criterion, write down what evidence would show it. This is the step most teams skip, and it is where consistency comes from.

• On paper: what would a resume line proving this look like? Scope, ownership, outcome.
• In conversation: what would a strong answer to a probing question include? What would a weak one sound like?
• In a work sample, if you use one: what specifically are you assessing, and how will you score it?

Then decide how you'll treat ambiguity. A candidate whose resume suggests a skill but doesn't prove it isn't a "no" — they're a "verify in interview." Distinguishing "Not Demonstrated" from "Unverified" keeps good people from being screened out by thin resumes.

Run structured interviews

Structured interviews — the same core questions for every candidate, tied to defined criteria, scored against agreed anchors — are widely recommended in hiring research and practice because they make comparisons fairer and decisions easier to explain. A practical version:

• Assign each criterion to a specific interviewer so nothing is covered three times and something else not at all.
• Write two or three questions per criterion. Prefer questions about past behavior ("tell me about a time you…") and job-relevant scenarios over brainteasers.
• Agree what a strong, adequate and weak answer looks like before the interviews start.
• Have each interviewer score independently, with notes on the evidence, before the debrief.
• In the debrief, discuss criteria one at a time, not candidates as a whole.

Leave room for follow-up questions — structure is about consistency, not a script. The goal is that every candidate gets a fair chance to show evidence for the same things.

Fairness: avoid proxies for protected characteristics

Some requirements look neutral but screen for things that have nothing to do with the job and correlate with protected characteristics such as age, disability, national origin, race or sex. Review your criteria for them:

• Graduation years, "digital native," or caps on years of experience, which can act as proxies for age.
• Physical requirements that the role doesn't actually involve.
• Specific schools, unpaid internships or prestige signals that track background more than ability.
• "Native speaker" when the real requirement is professional fluency in a language.
• Gaps in employment treated as disqualifying without asking about them.
• "Culture fit" without a definition — replace it with specific, job-related working behaviors.

This is not legal advice, and requirements vary by location; your counsel or HR team should review your process. But the practical principle is simple: every criterion should be job-related, and you should be able to explain why it's there.

How Job DNA and Match Codes work

Trazerr does this structuring with you. Paste a job description and Trazerr builds Job DNA: a set of requirements sorted into critical, important and preferred tiers, written as evidence you can assess. Review it before you publish and remove anything that doesn't belong — they're your criteria, not Trazerr's.

Each job gets a Match Code to share with candidates. When a candidate enters it, Trazerr compares their Career DNA to your Job DNA requirement by requirement. Each requirement is marked Confirmed, Partially Supported, Unverified or Not Demonstrated, and critical requirements count most toward the overall score. Not Demonstrated separates a skill gap the candidate stated from information missing from the resume. You also get interview questions grounded in that candidate's specific evidence and gaps — so the Unverified items become the questions you ask.

Candidates choose to match; you can't browse or search profiles. Employers are reviewed by a person before hiring tools are turned on. And Trazerr informs the decision — it explains fit, gaps and what to ask — but the hiring decision always belongs to your team.