What should a hiring intake produce?
A useful intake produces an editable internal job brief and a short list of candidate-evaluable requirements. It is not merely a polished job-ad paragraph. The brief should explain why the opening exists, what work the person will do, what constraints are real, what outcomes matter, and what evidence could support each requirement.
The European Commission's ESCO classification connects occupations and skills to the work people perform. Use it as a prompt for job analysis, not as a universal job description or legal rule: define the work first, then decide what evidence is relevant.
What information belongs in the intake?
Ask the hiring manager for five kinds of information:
- Role and business need: title, team, reporting line, reason for hiring, and the problem the opening should address.
- Work: recurring responsibilities, decisions, stakeholders, tools, location, schedule, and unusual working conditions.
- Constraints: confirmed availability, travel, certifications, language, location, or other conditions that are genuinely necessary.
- Outcomes: what should be different after onboarding and how the team will recognise useful progress.
- Evidence: observable examples, experience, knowledge, or work samples that could support each requirement.
Do not turn every preference into a must-have. The CIPD selection methods guidance supports structured, job-related selection; the priority and evidence decisions below are Skilltage guidance for making that structure reviewable.
Reusable hiring intake template
Copy this template into your intake conversation and complete it with the hiring manager:
Role and business need
- Working title and team:
- Reports to / key partners:
- Why is this opening needed now?
- What problem or opportunity should the role address?
Work and constraints
- Three to five recurring responsibilities:
- Decisions this person owns:
- Location, schedule, travel, or equipment constraints:
- Confirmed entry conditions (if any):
Outcomes and evidence
- First useful outcome after onboarding:
- Outcome by the end of the first review period:
- Requirement (hard / standard / preferred):
- Acceptable evidence a reviewer can inspect:
- What remains uncertain and needs clarification?
Public boundary
- What candidates need to know to assess the role:
- Internal context that informs decisions but should not be published:
- Questions to resolve before the job ad is approved:
How does vague input become an editable brief?
Start with the manager's words, then ask one clarifying question for each missing decision. “We need someone proactive to fix operations” becomes: “The person will own the weekly handover, investigate recurring delays, and document one improvement per quarter.” The second version names work and an outcome without promising a guaranteed result.
Next, turn the brief into requirements. “Proactive” might become a standard requirement for describing a process improvement the person personally delivered, while a confirmed forklift licence may be a hard entry condition if the role truly requires it. Record the source wording and the acceptable evidence so a reviewer can distinguish a demonstrated fact from an inference.
What belongs in the internal brief but not the public ad?
Keep internal context such as the reason for the vacancy, budget assumptions, sensitive operational dependencies, draft concerns, reviewer notes, and unresolved questions in the brief. The public ad should contain enough accurate information for candidates to understand the work, meaningful constraints, expected outcomes, and how to apply. Do not use the internal brief as a reason to conceal a material condition of the role.
This boundary is editorial and operational. It is not a promise that every jurisdiction treats the same detail identically. Check local employment, equality, accessibility, and data-protection requirements before publication.
Readiness test before requirements are confirmed
Confirm the brief only when every answer below is yes:
- The business need and role outcome are stated in concrete language.
- Each hard or standard requirement describes observable work, knowledge, or an actual condition.
- Each requirement has acceptable evidence and a named reviewer use.
- Preferences are labelled separately from entry conditions.
- Constraints are necessary, accurate, and ready to explain to candidates.
- Unresolved questions have an owner and a next review point.
- The public boundary does not omit a material condition or expose internal-only detail.
How does Skilltage support this sequence?
Skilltage guidance: the Define workflow starts with opening context, generates an editable job-brief draft, lets a recruiter save edits, and presents extracted requirements for review. The recruiter assigns hard, standard, or preferred priority, adds notes, and confirms the requirements before generating a job-ad draft. This supports human review; it does not decide whether a requirement is lawful, fair, or necessary.
The structured requirements guide explains the requirement model. After the brief is ready, use candidate screening questions that add evidence to decide whether one application question closes a genuine information gap.
Limitations and decision boundaries
A template cannot replace the hiring manager's knowledge, local legal review, accessibility review, or candidate conversation. A polished brief can still contain irrelevant or exclusionary requirements. AI assistance can reorganise input, but the team remains responsible for checking source context, editing the brief, confirming requirements, and deciding what to publish.
Next step
Run the readiness test with the hiring manager before opening the application. If a requirement has no observable evidence or reviewer action, rewrite it, label it as unresolved, or remove it before candidate intake.