Purpose
Assess each sourcing channel on quality, speed, cost, and fit for a specific role type — then rank channels and produce a concrete reallocation plan so recruiting effort and budget move toward the channels that actually deliver hires against time-to-fill targets. Replaces gut-feel channel decisions with a per-channel scorecard grounded in funnel data.
When to Use
Invoke this skill when the user asks to:
- Evaluate which sourcing channels are working for a role or requisition family
- Decide where to spend sourcing time or budget across sourced, referral, internal, and agency
- Diagnose why a pipeline is slow, expensive, or low-quality
- Justify cutting or expanding an agency, referral bonus, or job board spend
- Build a recommended channel mix for a new role or hiring plan
- Compare cost-per-hire and time-to-fill across channels
Inputs Required
Before starting, collect:
- Role type: The role or requisition family being sourced (e.g., mid-level backend engineer, enterprise AE, warehouse associate)
- Time-to-fill target: The target number of days from open to accepted offer
- Channels in use: Which channels are active (sourced/outbound, employee referral, internal mobility, agency, job boards, other)
- Per-channel funnel data: For each channel — candidates entered, screens, interviews, offers, hires (whatever is available)
- Per-channel cost: Agency fees, job board spend, referral bonuses, recruiter hours, tooling — as available
- Per-channel time data: Average days-in-stage or time-to-fill per channel, if tracked
- Quality signal: Any quality indicator available — offer acceptance rate, 90-day retention, hiring manager satisfaction, performance ratings
If cost or time data is incomplete for a channel, evaluate on available metrics and flag the gap as a measurement action rather than skipping the channel.
Instructions
Step 1: Normalize the Funnel Data
Convert each channel's raw numbers into comparable conversion rates before judging anything:
- Screen rate: candidates → screens
- Interview rate: screens → interviews
- Offer rate: interviews → offers
- Acceptance rate: offers → accepts
- Hire yield: candidates entered → hires (the top-line efficiency number)
Flag any channel with a sample too small to trust (fewer than ~10 candidates or fewer than 2 hires) as "directional only" so it isn't over-weighted in the ranking.
Step 2: Score Each Channel on Four Dimensions
Rate every active channel 1–5 on each dimension and show the reasoning:
- Quality (1–5): Weight offer acceptance, 90-day retention, and hiring manager satisfaction most heavily. A channel that produces hires who don't stay or don't perform scores low even if volume is high.
- Speed (1–5): Compare the channel's actual time-to-fill against the target. On target or faster = 5; 50%+ over target = 1.
- Cost efficiency (1–5): Use cost-per-hire, not cost-per-candidate. A channel with high per-candidate cost but strong yield can still be efficient.
- Volume reliability (1–5): Can the channel produce enough qualified candidates repeatably, or is it feast-or-famine?
Step 3: Calculate Cost-Per-Quality-Hire
For each channel: total channel cost ÷ number of quality hires (hires who passed the quality bar — accepted and, where data exists, retained past 90 days). This is the ranking metric that matters most. Note where recruiter time cost is or isn't included, since that changes agency-vs-internal comparisons significantly.
Step 4: Map Channel Fit to This Role Type
Channels perform differently by role. Assess fit against role characteristics:
- Scarce/specialized skills → outbound sourcing and referrals usually outperform job boards
- High-volume/repeatable roles → job boards and referrals scale; agency is often overpriced
- Confidential or senior/exec searches → agency and targeted outbound; job boards are weak
- Internal-fit-critical or fast-ramp roles → internal mobility and referrals lower risk
- Urgent backfills under target time-to-fill → weight speed-proven channels even at higher cost
Explicitly state which channels are structurally well-suited to this role type and which are being used against their strengths.
Step 5: Rank and Recommend Reallocation
Produce a ranked channel table (best cost-per-quality-hire and role-fit first), then a reallocation plan:
- Double down: channels to invest more time/budget in, with the reason
- Maintain: channels performing adequately — hold steady
- Fix or cut: underperformers — specify whether the problem is fixable (bad brief, wrong agency, weak referral incentive) or the channel is structurally wrong for the role
- Test: any unused channel worth piloting for this role type, with a small defined test
Give a specific target channel mix (e.g., "shift 30% of agency spend to referral bonus + outbound tooling").
Step 6: Flag Measurement Gaps
List any missing data that would sharpen the next evaluation — e.g., no 90-day retention by source, no recruiter-hours tracking — with the one tracking change that would close each gap.
Output Format
- Structure: Normalized funnel table → per-channel scorecards → cost-per-quality-hire ranking → role-fit assessment → reallocation plan → measurement gaps
- Length: 800–1,200 words
- Format: Tables for funnel data, scorecards, and ranking; short prose for role-fit and reallocation reasoning
- Sections: Funnel Normalization → Channel Scorecards (4-dimension) → Cost-Per-Quality-Hire Ranking → Channel-to-Role Fit → Reallocation Plan (Double down / Maintain / Fix or cut / Test) → Measurement Gaps
- Tone: Talent acquisition analyst — data-first, decisive, willing to recommend cutting a channel outright
Quality Checklist
Before delivering output, verify:
- [ ] Every active channel has a 4-dimension scorecard (Quality, Speed, Cost efficiency, Volume reliability) with numeric scores
- [ ] Cost-per-quality-hire is calculated per channel, not just cost-per-candidate
- [ ] Speed scores are measured against the stated time-to-fill target, not in the abstract
- [ ] Channels with unreliable sample sizes are flagged as directional rather than ranked as fact
- [ ] The reallocation plan sorts every channel into Double down / Maintain / Fix or cut / Test — none left unassigned
- [ ] At least one specific measurement gap and its fix are named
Notes
- Cost-per-quality-hire, not cost-per-hire, is the number that changes decisions — a cheap channel that produces early attrition is expensive in disguise
- Agency channels often look worse once recruiter time is stripped from internal channels and added correctly; call out whether time cost is included so comparisons are honest
- A channel underperforming on a given role type isn't always a bad channel — check role fit before recommending a cut
- Re-run this evaluation per requisition family, not company-wide; the same channel that wins for volume roles often loses for specialized ones
How to use this skill
This file is a Claude Code skill in Anthropic's standard format — markdown with YAML frontmatter at the top.
Installing in Claude Code:
~/.claude/skills/<folder-name>/SKILL.md— auto-loads in every session anywhere on your machine (recommended for skills you'll use across multiple projects)<your-project>/.claude/skills/<folder-name>/SKILL.md— auto-loads only when working in that project (recommended for project-specific skills)
Restart Claude Code or open a new session to register.
Using in Claude.ai, ChatGPT, Gemini, or other AI tools:
- Drag this file into a new chat, or copy and paste its contents
- Send your task or request as your next message — the AI will apply the skill where it fits
For Claude Code skill details: https://docs.anthropic.com/en/docs/claude-code/skills