Comparing technical candidates
Provides evidence-backed ratings against a shared four-level rubric, making differences in candidates’ explanations easier to evaluate without relying on confidence or presentation style alone.
— Talent & Leadership
Technical Competency Assessment
Assesses how clearly candidates and team members explain their technical work, producing comparable ratings against a four-level rubric with quoted evidence for every score.
- Talent & Leadership
- Human review built in
- Traceable reasoning
- Runs anywhere
1–2 weeks → ~15 minutes
For one complete, review-ready pass
No coding required
- Input
- Technical discipline and assessment scope
- Output
- Technical competency assessment report
- Runs in
- Skillsize · ChatGPT · Claude · Copilot
- Export
- SKILL.md · MCP
- Time saved
- ~1–2 weeks per run
— USE CASES
What people use Technical Competency Assessment for
Assessing team technical depth
Shows how well team members substantiate their technical experience with concrete approaches, tools, decisions and results. The report supports focused conversations about strengths and development needs.
Calibrating assessor judgements
Anchors every score in quoted evidence and a consistent rubric. Human approval keeps accountability for the ratings with the people responsible for the assessment.
Reviewing response integrity
Presents observable signals such as pasted text, writing time and depth under follow-up for an assessor to weigh. These observations support judgement rather than constitute an AI-detection verdict.
What it works from
- Technical discipline and assessment scope
- Candidate or team member details
- Shared pre-set technical questions
- Four-level competency rubric descriptions and criteria to apply consistently to responses across the assessment cohort
What you get back
- Technical competency assessment report
- Human-approved four-level ratings for each person
- Quoted evidence supporting every score
- Comparable findings on the depth of technical explanations across the assessment cohort, grounded in shared questions and the four-level rubric rather than a live practical test of technical performance or a verdict on response authorship based solely on observable integrity signals such as pasted text or writing time
— HOW IT BEHAVES
How Technical Competency Assessment produces its result
The mechanics behind this specific template — what it reads, what it calculates, and where a human stays in the loop.
Human sign-off before the write-up
The run pauses for a person to confirm the skills that matter before the deliverable is composed.
Composed as work product
Findings on the role or function in scope are written up as a document that reads like professional output, with each claim tied back to a skill.
Criteria-based analysis of every skill
Each skill is assessed against explicit criteria you control, so the same standard is applied across the role or function in scope on every run.
Grounded in your own role documentation and capability evidence
The run works from role documentation and capability evidence you supply, so conclusions about the role or function in scope are anchored to your evidence rather than general model knowledge.
Why this is expensive by hand
Technical assessments can favour confident delivery over demonstrated depth, leaving hiring and development decisions dependent on an assessor’s interpretation. Comparing technical candidates is the typical trigger — provides evidence-backed ratings against a shared four-level rubric, making differences in candidates’ explanations easier to evaluate without relying on confidence or presentation style alone. Get it right and the conclusion holds up in the room; get it rushed and it gets picked apart. Either way it costs roughly 1–2 weeks of experienced attention.
How this Skill produces it
Here the same job runs as a Skill. Your material goes in; technical competency assessment report comes out, alongside human-approved four-level ratings for each person. The judgement is built in — how items are broken up, what standard they are held to, and where the run stops for a human review. In effect, 1–2 weeks of senior time compresses into ~15 minutes — and the output is comparable across clients, quarters and colleagues instead of shaped by whoever ran it.
Who it's for
- CHROs and talent management leads
- Succession and leadership development teams
- Executive assessors and coaches
- Consultants running talent reviews
Run it in Skillsize — or export it anywhere
Technical Competency Assessment exports as a structured SKILL.md file and is MCP-ready, so the same method runs in ChatGPT, Claude, Copilot or your own AI products. Adapt it to your methodology, and the intelligence stays yours — not locked to one vendor.
ChatGPTClaudeCopilotAI Products (MCP)
More Talent & Leadership Skills
Browse the full library →Talent & Leadership
Live Culture Diagnostic
Reveals how organisational culture is lived through anonymous employee accounts, producing an evidence-backed diagnostic of shared themes, differences between functions and gaps between values and practice.
Talent & Leadership
Build a Blueprint
Builds a calibrated, reusable benchmark from source material so every later screen, shortlist or review is graded against the same bar.
Talent & Leadership
High-Potential Acceleration Plan
Turns a high-potential's assessment evidence into an acceleration plan weighted to real experience and exposure, naming the stretch assignments, mentors and programmes that will compound fastest.