evals/evals.json
{
"skill_name": "revops-hiring",
"evals": [
{
"id": 1,
"prompt": "I'm the VP Sales at Loamfield, a 22-person seed-stage B2B SaaS doing about $1.6M ARR with four AEs. Our CRM is a swamp, nobody can tell me what actually closed last month, and I lose a day a week rebuilding reports by hand. Finance froze all hiring except engineering through Q1. Write me a job description for a Revenue Operations Manager so I'm ready to post the second the freeze lifts.",
"expected_output": "A profile-choice analysis that deletes both in-house options (hiring freeze plus sub-$3M ARR), states the ordering of the remaining options out loud, and recommends a fractional operator or scoped agency project instead of the requested job description.",
"files": [],
"expectations": [
"Runs the profile-choice test before producing any job description",
"States that both in-house options are deleted outright rather than ranked last, and names the hiring freeze as one reason",
"Names the roughly $3M ARR fractional floor as a second, independent reason the in-house options are deleted",
"States the ordering of the remaining options out loud rather than implying it by list order",
"Ranks the options by value returned per hour the hiring manager and panel spend",
"Recommends a fractional operator or a scoped agency project rather than a full-time requisition",
"Notes that four AEs sits below the roughly-five-rep threshold that precedes a first dedicated ops hire",
"Names at least one re-ranking against Loamfield's own specific context",
"States that the guidance below the ARR floor is to stay fractional, not to hire a junior instead",
"Does not recommend hiring a junior analyst as a cheaper substitute for the manager requisition",
"Does not deliver a finished job description as the primary deliverable"
]
},
{
"id": 2,
"prompt": "Bramwell Tools, Series B, 140 people, 18 AEs, 6 marketers, 5 CS. Our board deck and the marketing dashboard have never once agreed on how many opportunities we sourced, and leads sit for days between marketing calling them qualified and sales actually working them. The CEO sponsors this and it reports to the CRO, headcount is approved, funded at manager level, we want a lasting capability, and there's no hard deadline. I want to hire a Salesforce administrator. Draft the scorecard.",
"expected_output": "A challenge to the systems-administrator framing, an archetype diagnosis routing reporting-trust pain to the analyst and cross-boundary handoff pain to the strategist, archetype and level named in writing, then a mission plus ranked dated outcomes and 4-6 competencies written around problems rather than tools.",
"files": [],
"expectations": [
"Challenges the systems-administrator framing and diagnoses the archetype from the described pain rather than from the requested title",
"Routes reporting-trust pain to the analyst archetype and cross-boundary handoff pain to the strategist, naming the routing rule",
"Names the archetype and the level in writing before drafting the scorecard",
"States the profile-choice ordering out loud and names which options were deleted, or states that none were",
"Warns that most failed RevOps hires are an archetype mismatch rather than a competence failure",
"Writes the role definition around problems and outcomes rather than around named tools",
"Produces a one-line mission plus between three and eight ranked outcomes, each carrying a date",
"Makes each outcome objective and observable rather than an activity description",
"Defines between four and six competencies",
"Confirms the reporting line and executive sponsor are locked before the role definition is drafted",
"Does not set a vendor administrator certification as a must-have for this requisition"
]
},
{
"id": 3,
"prompt": "Halverstad Media, 90 people. The problem sits entirely inside marketing: our marketing automation platform's routing rules were built by a contractor who left, form fills drop into the wrong nurture track, and the field mapping between the automation platform and the CRM drifts every few weeks. Sales says their pipeline is fine and they have no complaints. Our VP Marketing wants to hire a RevOps Manager to clean this up. Give me the interview loop.",
"expected_output": "A scope check identifying the pain as confined to one function, a statement that this is Marketing Ops rather than RevOps, a redirect of the requisition, and profile-choice options for the correctly scoped role - not a RevOps interview loop.",
"files": [],
"expectations": [
"Applies the scope check before any ranking and identifies the pain as confined inside a single function",
"States that pain confined inside one function belongs to Marketing Ops rather than RevOps",
"Cites the rule that RevOps is hired when revenue problems cross team boundaries",
"Recommends re-scoping the requisition to a marketing operations role rather than building a RevOps loop",
"Names the marketing-ops-to-RevOps handoff as living in the field mapping and the data sync between the two systems",
"Does not produce a full RevOps interview loop as if the requisition were correctly scoped",
"Distinguishes this from BizOps, described as board decks, market sizing and diligence work rather than CRM ownership",
"Offers the profile-choice options for the correctly scoped role rather than assuming a requisition",
"States the ordering of those options out loud",
"Notes that a scoped agency project fits a single bounded fix such as rebuilding routing rules",
"Flags the missing executive sponsor and reporting line before any requisition proceeds"
]
},
{
"id": 4,
"prompt": "Quennel Systems, 34 people, just signed a Series A term sheet. Our CRM is barely configured, half the fields are blank and reps still quote from spreadsheets. I'm the founder and I want to hire a Head of Revenue Operations at director level, because I want someone strategic who can own the whole revenue engine. They'd report jointly to me and my two co-founders. Write the role definition and the interview loop.",
"expected_output": "A refusal to draft the packet until one VP-or-C-level sponsor is committed in writing, a diagnosis of the request as an aspirational wrong-altitude hire, the real pain named as capacity plus systems, the cost of the mistake quantified with time-to-fill and ramp figures, and a ranked profile-choice recommendation instead.",
"files": [],
"expectations": [
"Refuses to proceed to the role definition until a single VP-or-C-level executive sponsor is committed in writing",
"Flags the joint reporting line to three founders as an unclear-mandate failure and requires one named owner",
"Names executive sponsorship as the single biggest predictor of first-hire success",
"Identifies the requested director-level strategist as an aspirational hire mismatched to a barely configured CRM",
"Diagnoses the actual pain as capacity plus systems and points at a hands-on generalist or fractional help rather than a Head-of title",
"Describes the wrong-altitude failure as too senior to do the work and too junior to own the strategy",
"Names the roughly $3M ARR fractional floor or the equivalent company-size guidance as a reason to question the full-time director requisition",
"Quantifies the cost of this mistake using time-to-fill and ramp figures rather than asserting it generically",
"States that an aspirational hire is a risk to the hiring manager on multiple levels",
"States the profile-choice ordering out loud and names any options deleted by the answers given",
"Does not deliver a finished director-level role definition and interview loop as requested"
]
},
{
"id": 5,
"prompt": "Here is the must-have list my CEO wrote for our RevOps Manager req at Pellworth Data - 110 people, Series B, analyst-leaning role at manager level: CRM administrator certification, marketing automation certification, 7+ years in RevOps, SQL, Python, Tableau, Looker, sales engagement tooling, conversation intelligence, CPQ, territory design, comp plan design, MBA preferred, startup experience, enterprise experience. Turn this into our requirements matrix and scoring sheet.",
"expected_output": "A requirements matrix capping must-haves at 5-7 weighted to 100%, the rest moved to additive nice-to-haves, disqualifiers held on a separate checklist, both certifications demoted because the archetype is analyst rather than systems, and experience scored level-relative.",
"files": [],
"expectations": [
"Caps must-haves at between five and seven",
"Weights the must-haves so they sum to 100%",
"Moves the remaining requirements to nice-to-haves as additive bonus points outside the 100%",
"Holds disqualifiers on a separate checklist rather than as negative points inside the score",
"Flags that listing fifteen-plus requirements signals unrealistic expectations or a lack of role clarity",
"Rewrites the must-haves around problems rather than around named tools",
"Demotes both vendor certifications out of the must-haves because the archetype is analyst rather than systems",
"States that certifications are table stakes rather than predictors of performance",
"Scores the years-of-experience requirement level-relative and states that overqualified and underqualified both score low",
"Names SQL as the highest-leverage transferable technical skill because it survives a stack migration",
"Challenges the 7+ years requirement against a manager-level target rather than carrying it through unchanged",
"Produces a weighted table rather than an unordered list of requirements"
]
},
{
"id": 6,
"prompt": "We're funding a Revenue Operations Manager req at Tindermoor, Series B, 160 people, based in Manchester with the option of remote anywhere in Europe. Finance approved GBP 62,000 base. Tell me whether that's right and give me the band I should be posting.",
"expected_output": "A statement that the quotable published bands are US-only and a refusal to invent a UK or European band, every figure carried with source and date, disagreeing sources shown rather than averaged, variable-pay structure and fully-loaded multiplier supplied, and the output labelled scoping input needing HR/legal review.",
"files": [],
"expectations": [
"States that the published bands it can quote cover the US and declines to invent a UK or European band",
"Quotes every compensation figure with its source and its date",
"Presents at least two sources that disagree and shows the conflict rather than averaging them into a single number",
"Ranks source trust with survey-backed data above recruiter placement data above job-scrape or algorithmic estimates",
"Labels the compensation output as scoping input only and flags that offer terms need HR or legal review",
"States that RevOps variable pay is a target bonus tied to company performance rather than commission",
"Gives the variable share as roughly 5-10% of total for individual contributors and 15-25% at manager level and above",
"Applies a fully-loaded cost rule of thumb of base multiplied by roughly 1.30 to 1.40 plus equity",
"Labels the SF/NY/Boston premium and the narrowed remote discount as US figures rather than applying them to Manchester",
"Warns that underfunding the requisition produces either a struggling junior or a title the company cannot support",
"Recommends fighting for more money to hire an experienced professional rather than working with the money available and failing the new hire",
"Does not state a specific UK salary band as though it were sourced"
]
},
{
"id": 7,
"prompt": "For our RevOps Analyst req at Corveth Labs we've built a take-home: we hand candidates our real anonymized pipeline export, ask for a full pipeline health analysis, a rebuilt stage model and a slide deck. We estimate eight hours. Unpaid. We're down to three finalists. Score it out of 100 and tell me how to grade it.",
"expected_output": "The eight-hour unpaid exercise deleted outright rather than shortened, the format ordering stated out loud, a two-hour cap with a three-hour unpaid ceiling, the paid format promoted because the finalist pool is three or fewer, a synthetic artifact substituted for the real export, and the summed score out of 100 replaced by a required-dimensions-at-bar rubric written before the first submission.",
"files": [],
"expectations": [
"Deletes the eight-hour unpaid exercise outright rather than shortening or demoting it",
"States that a long unpaid exercise selects for uncommitted hours and that no rubric recovers the candidates it filtered out before submission",
"States the format ordering out loud: live mock above paid take-home above unpaid take-home on signal per hour spent",
"Names three hours as the ceiling for an unpaid exercise and roughly two hours as the working target",
"Flags the compliance cost of an unpaid exercise producing output the company could actually use",
"Notes that a take-home creates a candidate file the company must store, retain and be able to delete on request",
"Promotes the paid take-home because the finalist pool is three or fewer and the spend is therefore bounded",
"Replaces the real pipeline export with a small synthetic artifact",
"Requires the rubric to be written before the first submission arrives",
"Rejects a summed score out of 100 and instead requires every required dimension at the meets-bar anchor",
"Grades against the same anchored competency scale used in the interviews rather than a separate ad-hoc impression",
"Plans a structured debrief and states that the debrief carries more signal than the artifact",
"Recommends timing the exercise on the internal team first, noting candidates take roughly twice as long as the author"
]
},
{
"id": 8,
"prompt": "Our RevOps Manager loop at Dunhollow runs six rounds: recruiter screen, hiring manager, CRO, VP Marketing, two AEs together, and a final with the CEO. After each round everyone drops a 1-5 rating on overall fit into a Slack channel and we talk it through in a group debrief. Both of our last two hires were whoever the CRO liked. Fix the loop.",
"expected_output": "A three-round loop plus one roughly two-hour take-home, a stage table with each competency owned by exactly one stage and each panelist in a lane, per-competency anchored scales with behavioral descriptions at every point, evidence-cited independent pre-scores, disqualifiers recorded separately, and confidence-weighted recommendations.",
"files": [],
"expectations": [
"Cuts the loop to at most three rounds plus one take-home of about two hours",
"Produces a stage table mapping stage to interviewer to competencies assessed",
"Assigns each competency to exactly one stage",
"Assigns each panelist a lane rather than letting everyone probe everything",
"Replaces the single overall-fit rating with per-competency scoring",
"Writes a behavioral description of what each anchor point looks like for this specific role, not only the endpoints",
"States that a bare number or a generic label such as \"Strong\" fails the scoring standard",
"Requires every submitted score to cite a quote or a concrete example as evidence",
"Requires interviewers to submit scores independently before any discussion",
"Identifies scores shared before being written as the cause of converging on the first confident voice",
"Records disqualifying signals separately from the score",
"Weights the recommendation by fit and confidence together, and treats \"insufficient data\" as a valid output",
"Directs debrief time to where the scores diverged",
"States that no single score overrides the loop"
]
},
{
"id": 9,
"prompt": "I'm building the interview questions for a Revenue Operations Manager at Wrenfold. It's a systems-heavy req - we're consolidating three CRMs into one and this hire owns that migration end to end. The panel is me (VP Sales), our head of marketing, and a senior AE. Give me the question set.",
"expected_output": "A question set with the discriminating-question ordering stated out loud, CRM data modelling promoted to first for a systems archetype but flagged because nobody on the named panel can grade it, the tool-first versus process-first filter named as highest yield, behavioral plus situational questions with probes per competency, domain probes ranked by rehearsability, and red/green anchors that differ in method.",
"files": [],
"expectations": [
"States the discriminating-question ordering out loud rather than presenting a flat list",
"Promotes the CRM data-modelling question to first because the archetype is systems",
"Flags that nobody on the named panel is qualified to grade a data-model answer and requires adding a qualified grader or dropping the question",
"Names the tool-first versus process-first filter as the highest-yield signal and notes it consumes no dedicated interview minutes",
"Identifies a candidate whose first question about any problem is which tool to use as a red flag",
"Supplies two to three behavioral and one to two situational questions per competency",
"Attaches follow-up probes to the questions",
"Rejects leading questions and questions that bundle two questions into one",
"Builds at least one probe from a documented RevOps failure mode rather than from a generic behavioral bank",
"Ranks the domain probes by how hard they are to rehearse and places define-before-automate at the top",
"Asks the candidate what they would refuse to automate on day one",
"Supplies red/green answer pairs as scoring anchors where the weak and strong answers differ in method rather than in confidence",
"Treats commonly cited numbers such as pipeline coverage as prompts and scores whether the candidate questions their provenance"
]
},
{
"id": 10,
"prompt": "Our new Director of Revenue Operations starts in 17 days at Astrelle Group. She's joining an existing four-person ops team and her mandate is cross-team process design plus owning the quarterly planning cadence. Write the 30-60-90. Our CEO wants forecast accuracy up 15 points by day 30.",
"expected_output": "A ramp plan branched on both seniority and archetype, the day-30 forecast target rejected against honest 60-90 day / 6-month / 12-month milestones, the strategist first deliverable and watch area, a light Day 1 with substantive ownership from Week 2, a non-manager buddy, a week-one access list, agreed ticket-queue protection, existing-team rather than greenfield sequencing, and a closing watch-areas section.",
"files": [],
"expectations": [
"Rejects the day-30 forecast-accuracy target as an unrealistic milestone",
"Sets honest milestones: early wins at 60-90 days, structural improvements around six months, revenue-level outcomes at 12+ months",
"States that anyone promising revenue impact in 30 days is selling you something",
"Branches the plan on seniority and on archetype rather than on only one of them",
"Uses the strategist first deliverable: a stakeholder-interview synthesis and a process map of one revenue motion with a proposed operating cadence",
"Names the strategist watch area of strategy documents with no shipped change by day 60",
"Ends the plan with a watch-areas section distinct from the goals",
"Keeps Day 1 light and starts substantive ownership in Week 2",
"Assigns a buddy who is not the hiring manager",
"Includes a week-one access list covering CRM admin permissions, a CRM sandbox, data warehouse and BI access, the marketing automation platform, and seats in the pipeline and forecast meetings",
"Grants that access in week one rather than on request",
"Agrees with the sponsor before day one what share of time goes to the ticket queue and who absorbs the rest",
"Treats this as an existing-team ramp absorbing documented processes and standards rather than a greenfield diagnostic ramp",
"Writes the 30, 60 and 90 day goals from the role's ranked outcomes rather than generically"
]
},
{
"id": 11,
"prompt": "Vessarine is a consumer subscription app - 2.1M free users, no sales team at all, just growth, product and support. We're hiring our first Revenue Operations Manager. I pulled a RevOps job description off a template site and it lists pipeline coverage, territory design, quota planning, CPQ and deal desk experience. Adapt it for us and build the competency set.",
"expected_output": "A packet stating the process is identical across segments while the weighting, metrics, stack and probes change; sales-led B2B requirements removed; PLG and consumer metrics substituted with any benchmark labelled directional; analytics-engineering skills weighted up; product-signal probes replacing territory design; and the B2B-marketing-specific domain probe deleted.",
"files": [],
"expectations": [
"States that the hiring process itself - scorecard, loop, work sample, ramp - is identical across segments and that what changes is weighting, metrics, stack and probes",
"Removes territory design, quota planning and pipeline coverage as sales-led B2B concerns",
"Removes deal desk and CPQ, noting deal desk is close to a B2B-only archetype rarely present in consumer subscription",
"Names the metrics this role owns: activation, product-qualified leads, free-to-paid conversion and expansion signals",
"Includes consumer metrics such as CAC, conversion rate, average order value, purchase frequency, churn and cohort-modeled LTV",
"Labels any benchmark figures it cites as directional vendor-report numbers rather than authoritative",
"Gives activation as roughly 25-40% of signups within 7-14 days",
"Gives free-to-paid conversion as roughly 2-5% for freemium and 15-25% for free trial",
"Notes that PQL users convert around three times higher and that only about a quarter of PLG companies actually use PQLs",
"Weights analytics-engineering-adjacent skills: strong SQL, hands-on data-warehouse work and a transformation layer",
"Probes product-signal fluency instead of territory design in the interview",
"Deletes the revenue-team-alignment domain probe as B2B-marketing-specific rather than asking it thin",
"Notes that using funnel stages as a proxy for a team's effectiveness becomes nonsensical in PLG",
"Warns that pure B2C subscription usually lacks the expansion pathway that pushes B2B net retention above 100%"
]
},
{
"id": 12,
"prompt": "Our board meets in 11 weeks and our forecast has been wrong three quarters running. Ferncastle, Series C, 240 people. I want to open a senior RevOps req this week and have that person present a fixed forecast process at the board meeting. Headcount is approved and our CFO will sponsor it. What level should I hire and how fast can we move?",
"expected_output": "A statement that a hard date inside a quarter deletes the senior in-house options, senior time-to-fill and time-to-productivity quoted, total calendar to first useful output used instead of time-to-fill alone, the junior-is-faster assumption rejected, a fractional or agency recommendation for the board date, and the one-off versus compounding question separated.",
"files": [],
"expectations": [
"States that a hard date inside a quarter deletes the senior in-house options because the search alone outlasts the deadline",
"Quotes time to fill for a senior hire as roughly 12-16 weeks",
"Quotes time to productivity for a senior hire as roughly 1-3 months",
"Budgets against total calendar to first useful output rather than against time to fill alone",
"Rejects the assumption that a junior requisition is faster, noting junior time to productivity runs 4-6 months",
"Notes that mid and senior tie on total calendar because senior's extra search time buys back ramp time",
"Recommends a fractional operator or a scoped agency project to hit the eleven-week board date",
"Names the deleted options explicitly rather than ranking them last",
"Separates the one-off board-date fix from the compounding-capability question and routes each differently",
"States the ordering of the remaining options out loud",
"Confirms the executive sponsor and reporting line are locked in writing before the requisition opens",
"Does not promise that a senior in-house hire can present a fixed forecast process at the board in eleven weeks"
]
}
],
"trigger_queries": [
{ "query": "We're hiring our first RevOps person - help me scope the role", "should_trigger": true },
{ "query": "Build me an interview loop for a Revenue Operations Manager", "should_trigger": true },
{ "query": "What should I put on the scorecard for a sales ops hire?", "should_trigger": true },
{ "query": "Design a take-home exercise for a RevOps analyst candidate", "should_trigger": true },
{ "query": "Write a 30-60-90 for our incoming Director of Revenue Operations", "should_trigger": true },
{ "query": "I need interview questions for a sales ops manager role", "should_trigger": true },
{ "query": "Should we hire a RevOps manager or a RevOps analyst?", "should_trigger": true },
{ "query": "Our CRM is a mess and nobody trusts the forecast - who do we hire?", "should_trigger": true },
{ "query": "Help me decide between a fractional ops person and a full-time hire", "should_trigger": true },
{ "query": "What level should I open this revenue operations req at?", "should_trigger": true },
{ "query": "How many rounds should our ops interview loop have?", "should_trigger": true },
{ "query": "Build a rating scale for scoring RevOps candidates", "should_trigger": true },
{ "query": "My panel all ask the same questions in every ops interview - how do I split them up?", "should_trigger": true },
{ "query": "What's a fair band for a Revenue Operations Manager in the US?", "should_trigger": true },
{ "query": "Draft the must-have versus nice-to-have split for our ops req", "should_trigger": true },
{ "query": "We want someone to own quote-to-cash - what does that req look like?", "should_trigger": true },
{ "query": "Our last two ops hires didn't work out. What are we getting wrong when we hire?", "should_trigger": true },
{ "query": "How do I test whether an ops candidate can actually do the job instead of just talking about it?", "should_trigger": true },
{ "query": "First 90 days plan for a new revenue operations manager", "should_trigger": true },
{ "query": "What red flags should I watch for on a RevOps resume I'm screening?", "should_trigger": true },
{ "query": "Is a CRM admin certification a must-have for this ops role?", "should_trigger": true },
{ "query": "We're a PLG company hiring our first ops person - what changes about the req?", "should_trigger": true },
{ "query": "Give me a work sample and a rubric for a sales operations candidate", "should_trigger": true },
{ "query": "Who should sit on the panel for our RevOps director search?", "should_trigger": true },
{ "query": "Our ops interview debrief always converges on whatever the CRO says first - fix it", "should_trigger": true },
{ "query": "Write the job requirements for a revenue operations analyst", "should_trigger": true },
{ "query": "Our new ops hire starts Monday - what should week one look like?", "should_trigger": true },
{ "query": "How long should the take-home be and should we be paying candidates for it?", "should_trigger": true },
{ "query": "What outcomes should I put in the role definition for this ops hire?", "should_trigger": true },
{ "query": "We need someone to fix our reporting - what kind of ops profile is that?", "should_trigger": true },
{ "query": "Do I need an executive sponsor before I open this req?", "should_trigger": true },
{ "query": "Headcount for our ops role just got approved - where do I start?", "should_trigger": true },
{ "query": "Compare hiring in-house versus retaining an agency for our GTM ops problems", "should_trigger": true },
{ "query": "Help me build the hiring packet for our second ops hire", "should_trigger": true },
{ "query": "What's the difference between an analyst hire and a systems admin hire, and which do I need?", "should_trigger": true },
{ "query": "The founder wants a Head of RevOps at 30 people. Talk me into it or out of it", "should_trigger": true },
{ "query": "Set milestones for our new ops hire's first six months", "should_trigger": true },
{ "query": "What should the debrief process look like after our ops interviews?", "should_trigger": true },
{ "query": "Our candidate exercise is eight hours long - is that fine?", "should_trigger": true },
{ "query": "How do I grade a candidate's pipeline analysis submission?", "should_trigger": true },
{ "query": "Build a competency model for hiring in revenue operations", "should_trigger": true },
{ "query": "Our last ops hire got buried in tickets in month one. How do I stop that happening again?", "should_trigger": true },
{ "query": "Should this ops role report to the CRO or the CEO?", "should_trigger": true },
{ "query": "When is a company actually ready for a dedicated ops hire?", "should_trigger": true },
{ "query": "We're at $4M ARR with six reps - time to hire ops?", "should_trigger": true },
{ "query": "Write the mission statement for our sales ops role definition", "should_trigger": true },
{ "query": "What questions separate a genuinely good ops candidate from a polished one?", "should_trigger": true },
{ "query": "How do I structure a hiring loop that actually tests forecasting judgment?", "should_trigger": true },
{ "query": "Give me anchored behaviors for a 1 to 5 scale on cross-functional leadership", "should_trigger": true },
{ "query": "Design the onboarding plan for a new sales operations manager", "should_trigger": true },
{ "query": "Our board wants forecast accuracy fixed - do I hire for it or buy it?", "should_trigger": true },
{ "query": "I keep getting candidates who are great in the CRM and useless at process. Fix my loop", "should_trigger": true },
{ "query": "What should I pay a RevOps director, and where does that number come from?", "should_trigger": true },
{ "query": "Plan the first 30 days for someone joining our four-person ops team", "should_trigger": true },
{ "query": "Our ops job description has 16 requirements on it. Trim it", "should_trigger": true },
{ "query": "Build interview probes around data quality and single source of truth", "should_trigger": true },
{ "query": "How do I know if I'm hiring at the wrong level for this ops role?", "should_trigger": true },
{ "query": "We're consolidating three CRMs and need someone to own it - write the req", "should_trigger": true },
{ "query": "Is a two-hour case study enough signal for a manager-level ops candidate?", "should_trigger": true },
{ "query": "Set up a structured hiring process for our revenue operations team", "should_trigger": true },
{ "query": "What should a strategist ops profile deliver first once they join?", "should_trigger": true },
{ "query": "Marketing and sales fight over lead handoffs. Do I hire someone to own that, and what do I look for?", "should_trigger": true },
{ "query": "How do I avoid another archetype mismatch on this ops hire?", "should_trigger": true },
{ "query": "Give me a stage map for our operations manager interviews", "should_trigger": true },
{ "query": "I need to sketch what good looks like for this ops role before I post it", "should_trigger": true },
{ "query": "Draft the disqualifier checklist for our ops candidate screen", "should_trigger": true },
{ "query": "How do I prep for my RevOps manager interview next week?", "should_trigger": false },
{ "query": "Review my resume for a revenue operations analyst role", "should_trigger": false },
{ "query": "Am I ready to go for a RevOps manager title?", "should_trigger": false },
{ "query": "Which RevOps certifications are worth getting for my own career?", "should_trigger": false },
{ "query": "How do I break into RevOps from a sales role?", "should_trigger": false },
{ "query": "What salary should I ask for in my RevOps offer negotiation?", "should_trigger": false },
{ "query": "How do I prove my impact as an ops person when nobody notices the work?", "should_trigger": false },
{ "query": "Should I take the IC track or the management track in revenue operations?", "should_trigger": false },
{ "query": "Let me practice the exercises RevOps interview loops run - I'm the candidate", "should_trigger": false },
{ "query": "Design our sales-to-CS handoff after closed-won", "should_trigger": false },
{ "query": "Our CSMs start from zero after a deal closes. Fix the handoff", "should_trigger": false },
{ "query": "Write the onboarding plan for a new enterprise customer", "should_trigger": false },
{ "query": "Build our lead scoring model", "should_trigger": false },
{ "query": "Sales keeps rejecting our MQLs - fix the scoring", "should_trigger": false },
{ "query": "Design the lead routing waterfall for inbound", "should_trigger": false },
{ "query": "Our round robin is lopsided - rebalance it", "should_trigger": false },
{ "query": "Why did we miss the number last quarter?", "should_trigger": false },
{ "query": "Our commit is never right. Diagnose the forecast", "should_trigger": false },
{ "query": "Audit our pipeline stage exit criteria", "should_trigger": false },
{ "query": "Our stages are all named after rep activity. Rewrite them", "should_trigger": false },
{ "query": "Clean up the stale deals before the QBR", "should_trigger": false },
{ "query": "Who owns each CRM field and which system wins on conflict?", "should_trigger": false },
{ "query": "Finance and sales report different ARR numbers. Sort out the governance", "should_trigger": false },
{ "query": "Design our customer health score bands and weights", "should_trigger": false },
{ "query": "Which signals actually predict churn for our accounts?", "should_trigger": false },
{ "query": "Build the discount approval matrix for non-standard deals", "should_trigger": false },
{ "query": "Where are we leaking revenue in the self-serve funnel?", "should_trigger": false },
{ "query": "Design our funnel stage set and the conversion assumptions behind the plan", "should_trigger": false },
{ "query": "Build the KPI tree from board level down to IC", "should_trigger": false },
{ "query": "Structure the monthly revenue report for the board", "should_trigger": false },
{ "query": "We have too many GTM tools - what do we cut?", "should_trigger": false },
{ "query": "Which RevOps newsletters and podcasts should I subscribe to?", "should_trigger": false },
{ "query": "Starting a new RevOps project - where do I begin?", "should_trigger": false },
{ "query": "Route this ops task to the right playbook in the collection", "should_trigger": false },
{ "query": "What conferences should our ops team attend this year?", "should_trigger": false },
{ "query": "Hire our first developer relations advocate", "should_trigger": false },
{ "query": "Build the interview loop for a partnerships manager", "should_trigger": false },
{ "query": "Write a scorecard for a developer platform engineer req", "should_trigger": false },
{ "query": "Hire an SDR team from scratch", "should_trigger": false },
{ "query": "Design the interview process for an account executive", "should_trigger": false },
{ "query": "Build the hiring scorecard for a customer success manager", "should_trigger": false },
{ "query": "Interview questions for a data analyst joining our BI team", "should_trigger": false },
{ "query": "Hire an FP&A analyst for the finance team", "should_trigger": false },
{ "query": "Source candidates and write the outreach for our ops req", "should_trigger": false },
{ "query": "Post our RevOps job to the right job boards", "should_trigger": false },
{ "query": "Set up applicant tracking for our ops req", "should_trigger": false },
{ "query": "Write the offer letter for our new RevOps manager", "should_trigger": false },
{ "query": "Is this non-compete clause enforceable for an ops hire?", "should_trigger": false },
{ "query": "Draft an employment contract for a revenue operations director", "should_trigger": false },
{ "query": "Run a performance improvement plan for our underperforming ops manager", "should_trigger": false },
{ "query": "How do I terminate our RevOps manager?", "should_trigger": false },
{ "query": "Design the comp plans for our AEs next year", "should_trigger": false },
{ "query": "Build the quota and territory model for next fiscal year", "should_trigger": false },
{ "query": "Set up our CRM sandbox and permission sets", "should_trigger": false },
{ "query": "Write a promotion case for my ops analyst", "should_trigger": false },
{ "query": "Plan the agenda for our weekly revenue meeting", "should_trigger": false },
{ "query": "Onboard a new partner into our channel program", "should_trigger": false },
{ "query": "Create a training curriculum for our sales enablement team", "should_trigger": false },
{ "query": "Benchmark engineering salaries in Berlin", "should_trigger": false },
{ "query": "Evaluate this outsourced ops agency's proposal and statement of work", "should_trigger": false },
{ "query": "Write performance review criteria for our existing ops team", "should_trigger": false },
{ "query": "Set up an employee referral bonus program", "should_trigger": false },
{ "query": "Create a diversity hiring strategy for the whole company", "should_trigger": false },
{ "query": "Write our employer brand page for the careers site", "should_trigger": false },
{ "query": "Schedule the interviews and coordinate the panel's calendars", "should_trigger": false },
{ "query": "Run a reference check on our finalist", "should_trigger": false }
]
}
SKILL.md
---
name: revops-hiring
description: Build the complete hiring packet for a RevOps or Sales Ops role - archetype and level decision, outcome scorecard, interview stage map with a competency question bank and anchored rating scales, a work-sample exercise with rubric and debrief, and a 30-60-90 ramp plan branched on seniority and archetype. For the hiring manager or founder recruiting the hire. Use whenever the user mentions hiring a RevOps manager, sales ops interview questions, a RevOps take-home exercise, a scorecard for a first ops hire, or a 30-60-90 for a new ops hire - even if they never say "hiring packet". Does not source candidates or post jobs. Do NOT use for a candidate's own interview prep - use mbfinotti/revops-skills@revops-career instead.
license: MIT
metadata:
author: Maya-Beth Finotti
version: "1.4.8"
---
# RevOps Hiring
Build the packet a hiring manager needs to recruit a RevOps or Sales Ops person: role definition, interview loop, scorecard, work sample, ramp plan.
The frame is the scorecard tradition of Geoff Smart and Randy Street's _Who: The A Method for Hiring_ - a mission, 3-8 ranked measurable outcomes, then competencies. It applies to the archetypes practitioners actually recognize:
- RevOps Co-op's five career tracks: analyst, systems administrator, enablement, deal desk, project manager.
- Compressed for hiring into three profiles: systems, analyst, strategist.
Two decisions come before any packet exists:
- Whether to open a requisition at all rather than take a fractional operator or a scoped agency project.
- Which archetype - because most failed RevOps hires are an archetype mismatch, not a competence failure.
This is the hirer's side only. It does not source candidates, post jobs, or track applicants, and it reports published compensation bands with source and date as scoping input - it never writes offer letters or gives legal or HR compliance advice; those need HR/legal review.
The candidate side - preparing for and landing a RevOps role - is the mirror-image sibling `mbfinotti/revops-skills@revops-career`. Onboarding a _customer_ after closed-won is `mbfinotti/revops-skills@sales-to-cs-handoff`, a different job entirely.
## Interview
Ask before designing. One question per message; offer multiple-choice answers where possible. Skip anything already answered.
- What stage and size is the company? (a) pre-Series A / under 25 people, (b) Series A-B / 25-150, (c) Series C+ / 150+, (d) not venture-track - describe.
- What does the GTM team look like - roughly how many sales reps, marketers, and CS people?
- Is this the first dedicated ops hire, or joining an existing ops team? If existing: who is on it and what do they own?
- Which pain is driving the hire? (a) admin and ticket backlog - capacity, (b) nobody trusts the reporting or the forecast - analytics, (c) problems that cross team boundaries - process and alignment, (d) several of these.
- How mature is the stack? (a) CRM barely configured, (b) CRM plus marketing automation working but messy, (c) full GTM stack including a data warehouse and BI.
- What budget and level is the req funded at - and is that number negotiable if the market says it is too low?
- Who will this hire report to, and who is the executive sponsor?
- Who is on the interview panel, and how many rounds can you realistically run?
- By when must this be solved? (a) a dated event forces it inside a quarter - board meeting, quota reset, migration, (b) this fiscal year, (c) open. A hard date inside a quarter deletes the senior in-house options: the search alone outlasts the deadline.
- Do you want a one-off fix or a compounding capability? A one-off promotes fractional and agency; a compounding mandate promotes the in-house hire, and is the only answer that justifies its first two quarters.
- What is your effort ceiling - how many manager hours per week you have, whether panelists are available, whether headcount is actually approved, and whether you could unwind this in a month if it went wrong? A freeze or unapproved headcount deletes the requisition options outright; low tolerance for irreversibility promotes the contract ones.
## Workflow
1. Run the Interview; collect every answer before designing anything.
2. Decide whether to open a requisition at all, using the ranked profile-choice test in [references/role-archetypes-and-leveling.md](references/role-archetypes-and-leveling.md). By value returned per hour you spend: `fractional operator > scoped agency project > in-house specialist > in-house strategist`, with the in-house rows routed by pain - reporting-trust to the analyst, admin backlog to the systems specialist, cross-boundary process to the strategist - and pain confined to one function routed out of RevOps entirely to Sales, Marketing, or CS Ops. Delete the options the Interview answers rule out rather than ranking them last, and name which you deleted. Re-rank the rest against what you already know about this company: an agency already retained, an in-house recruiter, a fifth ops hire versus a first. Only an in-house outcome makes the rest of this workflow apply - then name the archetype and level in writing before drafting anything else.
3. Gate the req: lock the reporting line and a VP-or-C-level executive sponsor in writing - practitioners call sponsorship the single biggest predictor of first-hire success - and pressure-test the budget against the published bands in the same reference. Quote every band with its source and date. RevOps Co-op's warning applies: "It's better to fight for more money to hire an experienced professional than [to] work with the money you have and fail your new hire."
4. Write the role definition as a scorecard - one-line mission, 3-8 ranked outcomes with dates that are objective and observable, then competencies - and turn its must-haves into a requirements matrix. Sketch what "good" looks like even roughly; RevOps Co-op: "Your job is to sketch out what 'good' could look like - even if it's just a napkin drawing." Score experience level-relative - overqualified and underqualified both score low - and make a vendor certification a must-have only for a systems archetype at a company standardized on that platform. Requirements-matrix rules:
- Write around problems, not tools.
- Cap must-haves at 5-7 and weight them to sum to 100%.
- Keep nice-to-haves as additive bonus points.
- Hold disqualifiers in a separate checklist rather than as negative points inside the score.
5. Define 4-6 competencies and build the question bank from [references/competencies-and-question-bank.md](references/competencies-and-question-bank.md): 2-3 behavioral and 1-2 situational questions per competency with follow-up probes, domain failure modes as hard-to-fake probes, and red/green answer pairs as scoring anchors.
6. Map the loop as a stage table - stage, interviewer, competencies assessed - with each competency owned by exactly one stage and each panelist assigned a lane. Keep it tight: Matthew Volm (CEO, RevOps Co-op) argues for one roughly two-hour take-home and "keep it to 3 rounds max".
7. Fix the scoring discipline before anyone interviews. Write an anchored rating scale carrying a behavioral description of what each anchor point looks like for this specific role - a bare number is banned - and require every submitted score to cite evidence, a quote or a concrete example. Interviewers score independently before any discussion, disqualifying signals are recorded separately from the score, and the recommendation is weighted by confidence, not fit alone: "insufficient data" is a valid output, and no single score overrides the loop.
8. Design the work sample from [references/work-sample-design.md](references/work-sample-design.md). Pick the format from the ranked menu there - `live mock > paid take-home > unpaid take-home` on signal per hour spent, with the unpaid row carrying both the drop-off of your best candidates and a real compliance cost, and the eight-hour unpaid exercise deleted rather than demoted. Then build:
- A prompt that looks like a real defect, not a project.
- A hard time cap.
- A rubric written before the first submission.
- A debrief plan - the debrief carries more signal than the artifact.
9. Build the ramp plan from [references/ramp-plan-template.md](references/ramp-plan-template.md): pre-start, Day 1, Week 1, then 30/60/90 - branched on seniority and archetype, with the week-one access list, ticket-queue protection, honest milestone expectations, and closing watch areas.
10. Emit the packet (next section) section by section for user validation, grounding each section in the matching example from [references/worked-examples.md](references/worked-examples.md).
11. Iterate the packet until every item in Pass Threshold holds.
12. If your harness has persistent memory, memorize the approved packet - archetype, level, competencies, stage map, thresholds, ramp branches - so screening runs and the eventual ramp start from it instead of re-interviewing. Without memory, tell the user to keep the packet document as the standing input for future runs.
## The Hiring Packet
Deliver every engagement as this artifact. Fully worked versions live in [references/worked-examples.md](references/worked-examples.md).
```
HIRING PACKET - <company>, <role>, <date>, v<n>
Profile choice : ranked options with the ordering stated | options deleted + why | recommendation
Role definition : archetype + level | mission | 3-8 ranked outcomes with dates | competencies
Requirements : must-haves weighted to 100% | nice-to-haves as bonus | disqualifier checklist
Comp input : published band quoted with source + date | flag: offer terms need HR/legal
Stage map : stage -> interviewer -> competencies assessed (each owned by exactly one stage)
Question bank : per competency - behavioral + situational + follow-up probes | red/green anchors
Scorecard : anchored scale per competency | cited evidence per score | confidence rating
Work sample : prompt + time cap + paid/unpaid call | rubric (written first) | debrief agenda
Debrief rules : independent pre-scores | disqualifiers separate | confidence-weighted decision
Ramp plan : pre-start, Day 1, Week 1, 30/60/90 | seniority + archetype branches |
week-one access list | watch areas
```
## B2B and B2C
The hiring process is identical across segments - scorecard, loop, work sample, ramp - and say so when asked. What genuinely changes is which competencies carry weight, which metrics the role owns, which stack the candidate must know, and what the interview probes.
- **B2B enterprise**: the role owns pipeline coverage, win rate, deal velocity, net revenue retention, forecast accuracy, territory and quota; the stack is CRM, sales engagement, revenue intelligence, CPQ - weight quote-to-cash depth, territory and comp design, and forecast-cadence judgment.
- **B2C and e-commerce**: the role owns CAC, conversion rate, average order value, purchase frequency, churn, and cohort-modeled LTV.
- **PLG**: activation, product-qualified leads, free-to-paid conversion, expansion signals - RevOps Co-op notes that in PLG "using funnel stages as a proxy for a team's effectiveness [becomes] nonsensical".
Directional vendor-report benchmarks for PLG, labeled directional and not authoritative:
- Activation: 25-40% of signups within 7-14 days.
- Free-to-paid: roughly 2-5% freemium, 15-25% free trial.
- PQL users convert around three times higher.
- Only about a quarter of PLG companies actually use PQLs.
PLG and consumer RevOps therefore demand analytics-engineering-adjacent skills - strong SQL, hands-on data-warehouse work, a transformation layer - and interviews should probe product-signal fluency over territory design.
- Deal desk is close to a B2B-only archetype; consumer subscription rarely has one.
- Its billing and payments complexity has no B2B analogue.
- Pure B2C subscription usually lacks the expansion pathway that pushes B2B net retention above 100%.
## Pass Threshold
Iterate until every item holds. Each item below is either sourced from practitioner guidance or this skill's own convention.
- Archetype and level are named in writing, and the reporting line plus executive sponsor are locked, before the role definition is drafted - no sponsor, no req (sourced).
- The role definition names problems and outcomes, not tools, and caps must-haves at 5-7 (sourced).
- 4-6 competencies; every question maps to exactly one; every competency is owned by exactly one interview stage (sourced).
- Every anchor point carries a role-specific behavioral description, and every submitted score cites a quote or concrete example (sourced); a bare number fails this check.
- The loop runs at most 3 rounds plus one take-home of about two hours, three-hour ceiling if unpaid (sourced).
- The work-sample rubric exists before the first submission; its numeric point values follow this skill's own convention.
- The ramp plan branches on both seniority and archetype, ends with watch areas, and sets the honest milestone timeline - early wins in 60-90 days, revenue-level outcomes at 12+ months (sourced).
- Every compensation figure in the packet carries its source and date; no invented bands, no figures for geographies the sources do not cover (self-set).
- Every option menu the packet presents - profile choice, work-sample format, question selection - states its ordering out loud, deletes ruled-out options instead of demoting them, and names one re-ranking against this company's own context (self-set).
## Common Failure Modes
Ranked by how much of this table each prevention removes, best ratio first: `committed executive sponsor > archetype diagnosis > stage map and independent scoring > defended ramp calendar`. The first two cost a conversation each and pre-empt the top four rows before the req opens; the rest are loop and onboarding discipline that only start paying once those two hold.
| Symptom | Root cause | Fix |
| ------------------------------------------------------- | ---------------------------------------------------------------- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| Impressive hire, CRM cleaner, forecast still shaky | Archetype mismatch - a systems admin hired for a process problem | Rerun the profile-choice test; the problem "was never the software; it was the revenue motion" |
| Hire spends months in meetings, then quits | Unclear mandate - three executives each think they own the hire | Write the charter, outcomes, and single sponsor before the req opens |
| Every improvement becomes a negotiation | No executive sponsor | Do not open the req until a VP or C-level sponsor is committed in writing |
| First 90 days eaten by the ticket queue | No defended calendar or mandate | Protect ramp time explicitly; make ticket-queue capture a named watch area |
| Panelists all ask the same questions | No stage map | One competency, one stage; assign each panelist a lane |
| Debrief converges on the first confident voice | Scores shared before being written | Independent scoring before discussion; spend debrief time where scores diverge |
| Strong candidate rejected over a missing certification | Vendor cert set as a must-have | Certs are table stakes, not predictors - nice-to-have unless systems archetype on a standardized platform |
| Polished interviewer, weak on the job | Loop rewards polish over method | Work sample plus red/green method anchors; the weak and strong answers differ in method, not confidence |
| Best candidates decline the take-home | Long unpaid exercise selects for uncommitted hours | Cap at 2-3 hours, consider paying, and move the signal to the debrief |
| Good hire pushed out at month six for no revenue impact | Unrealistic timeline | Set honest milestones up front - "Anyone promising revenue impact in 30 days is selling you something" |
## Invocation Examples
- "We're a 40-person Series A B2B SaaS, the CRM is a mess and nobody trusts the forecast - help me scope and hire our first RevOps person."
- "I have a RevOps analyst req open on an existing five-person ops team - build the interview loop, the scorecard, and a take-home that actually tests the job."
- "Our new Director of Revenue Operations starts in three weeks - write the 30-60-90 ramp plan."
## Reference
- Read [references/role-archetypes-and-leveling.md](references/role-archetypes-and-leveling.md) when diagnosing the archetype, picking the level, scoping a first hire versus an Nth hire, or pressure-testing the budget against published salary bands.
- Read [references/competencies-and-question-bank.md](references/competencies-and-question-bank.md) when defining competencies, writing questions and probes, or building the anchored scorecard and requirements matrix.
- Read [references/work-sample-design.md](references/work-sample-design.md) when designing the exercise - time and payment norms, synthetic-dataset construction, the grading rubric, and the debrief.
- Read [references/ramp-plan-template.md](references/ramp-plan-template.md) when writing the ramp plan - the pre-start-to-90-day skeleton with seniority and archetype branches and watch areas.
- Read [references/worked-examples.md](references/worked-examples.md) when shaping the deliverable - one full positive packet and one negative example with its cost spelled out.
- See `mbfinotti/revops-skills@revops-career` for the mirror-image candidate side - preparing for, positioning toward, and progressing in a RevOps role.
- See `mbfinotti/revops-skills@sales-to-cs-handoff` for onboarding a customer after closed-won - a different job this skill does not cover.
- See `mbfinotti/revops-skills@lead-scoring`, `mbfinotti/revops-skills@sales-forecast-diagnostic`, and `mbfinotti/revops-skills@pipeline-stage-definition-audit` for the domain depth behind the interview probes - the failure modes those skills fix are the material candidates are probed on.