Solutions·HR
The coordination. Never the decision about a person.
Scheduling across four calendars, the interview kit built from the actual scorecard, the onboarding checklist that runs itself, the policy question answered from your handbook rather than from the internet. An agent does the logistics. A human does the judgement — and we mean that as a boundary, not a slogan.
Coordination and drafting
A person decides about a person
Answers from your handbook
DoesScheduling, kits, onboarding, answers
Does notRank, score or reject a candidate
Answers fromYour handbook, in your repo
Personal dataStays in the systems you connected
The handoff
The logistics that eat a hiring week.
A People team is judgement plus an enormous amount of coordination, and the coordination is what stops the judgement happening. Every job below is the coordination half — deliberately.
01Scheduling across four calendars
Find the slot that works for the panel and the candidate, send the invitations with the right materials attached, and re-run the whole thing when one interviewer drops. The single most reliable source of hiring delay — and pure logistics.
02The interview kit, built from the scorecard
For each stage: what this interview is testing, questions that actually test it, and what a strong and a weak answer look like. Generated from your own scorecard in the repo, so a new interviewer runs the same loop as an experienced one.
03The debrief pack
It assembles what every interviewer wrote, arranged against the scorecard rather than by who typed most, and highlights where two interviewers disagreed. Surfacing disagreement is the point. Resolving it is the panel’s job.
04Onboarding that runs itself
Accounts requested, the reading list assembled, the first-week plan drafted from the role, the buddy pinged. It is a checklist that executes instead of a checklist somebody has to remember to open.
05Policy questions, answered from your handbook
Asked in a Slack thread, answered from the document in your repo with the section quoted. If your handbook does not answer it, it says that and routes to a person rather than filling the gap with a plausible policy.
06The job description, drafted from the real team
It reads the roles you already have and the work that team actually does before writing the posting, so the description matches the job rather than the last posting for a similar title.
The output
A kit any interviewer can run.
The output here is deliberately about the process, not about the person. It makes the loop consistent and the bar explicit — which is the part a tool can genuinely improve.
hiring/platform-engineer/stage-2-systems.mdDocument
Stage 2 — systems design · interviewer kit
- Scorecard
- hiring/scorecards/platform.md
- Stage
- 2 of 4 · 60 minutes
- Tests
- Failure reasoning
- Status
- Draft · for review
What this stage is for: whether the candidate reasons about failure before they reason about throughput. It is not a breadth check — stage 3 covers breadth, and asking here duplicates it.
Open with a system they have actually operated, not a hypothetical. Follow the first failure mode they name all the way down. A strong answer gets more specific under pressure; a weak one gets more abstract.
Not in scope for this stage — and flagged because interviewers keep straying into it: compensation, notice period, and anything that belongs to the recruiter conversation.
Illustration. The role, the scorecard and the paths are fictional.
It works on the process, not on the person
The kit, the schedule, the debrief structure, the onboarding plan. Every one of those is about how you run hiring. None of them is a judgement about a candidate — and that boundary is a deliberate product position rather than a limitation.
Your handbook is the source
Policy answers come from the document in your repo with the section quoted. A question the handbook does not cover gets routed to a person — the gap is reported, not filled.
The same loop for every candidate
The value of generating the kit from the scorecard is not speed. It is that the fifteenth candidate gets the same interview as the first — a fairness property before it is an efficiency one.
Where it reaches
The calendar, the inbox, the applicant system.
People systems hold the most sensitive data in the company, so the mechanism matters more here than anywhere else. Connect each once for the project; the credential is decrypted server-side and attached to the outbound call.
Google Workspace and Outlook
Calendars, invitations and the mail thread with the candidate. Reading a calendar, booking on it and sending as you are separate actions with separate answers.
Greenhouse and other ATS
In Easy connect: click through the OAuth screen and the connection belongs to the project. Read the pipeline and the scorecard, write back stage and scheduling. Whether it may write at all is your grant to make.
Notion and Google Drive
The handbook, the scorecards, the onboarding plans. Increasingly these belong in the repo instead, where a change to a policy is a diff with an author and a date on it.
Slack
The one live channel. Policy questions get asked where people already are, and the answer comes back in the thread.
Who the connection acts as
One project-managed connection the team shares, or a personal authorization where each member acts as themselves. For People systems the second is usually the right answer.
What not to connect
If a system holds data you would rather no agent touched, the correct configuration is not to connect it — not a softer permission.
ConnectorsHR
calendarWorkspaceConnected
greenhouseATSConnected
notionHandbookConnected
slackChannelConnected
How it runs
Ask in the thread. Run onboarding on the start date.
The same session machinery started three ways. In this function the automated mode is best pointed at logistics with a fixed date — never at anything evaluative.
01 · On demand
“How much carry-over do I have?”
Asked in a Slack thread, answered from the handbook with the section quoted. Questions the handbook does not answer get routed to a person instead of guessed at.
02 · Human-assisted
It stops before it contacts a candidate
Set anything that sends to a candidate to Ask. The run pauses at the call showing the message and the recipient, and resumes from that exact point once you approve.
03 · Automated
The onboarding run, on the start date
A cron trigger opens the session on day one and works the checklist: accounts requested, reading list assembled, first-week plan drafted, buddy pinged. Fixed date, fixed list, no judgement in it.
Approval requestAwaiting
Awaiting your approval
Send interview invite · Stage 2 systems
Candidate thread · kit attached · action: send email
Approve
Deny
Control
Where the line is, and why it is drawn there.
This is the function where “the agent handled it” would be the wrong answer. The controls below are the platform ones; the first row is the product position.
It does not decide about people
No ranking, no scoring, no automated rejection, no recommendation dressed as a summary. The jobs on this page are scheduling, drafting, assembling and answering. Screening candidates is a decision about your hiring process — and it is not what this page is selling you.
Approval gates are off until you set them
The shipped default is permissive. For a People project, setting every message to a candidate or an employee to Ask is the first change to make. It is not already done for you.
Reach is granted per agent, not inherited
The recruiting agent reaches the applicant system and the calendar. It does not reach payroll, because you did not list payroll for it — and it cannot discover that the connector exists.
Connector credentials never enter the machine
The sandbox carries one project-scoped token and no third-party keys. Your applicant-system credential is decrypted server-side and attached to the outbound request, then thrown away.
Where the data sits is your choice
Neuro OS is open source and self-hostable: your cloud, your VPC, or your own on-prem network. If personal data may not leave your infrastructure, run the whole platform inside it.
The same platform
The other teams
One project, one set of connectors, one memory that compounds. Each team writes the skills for its own work; nobody stands up a second system.
SalesResearch, drafts and CRM hygiene, held for your approval
MarketingDrafts, then a yes, then the post
AI Search AnalyticsWhat AI answers — and what to change
OperationsRoutines run checklists; humans handle exceptions
FinanceThe close, with the working shown
SupportAround-the-clock triage with named escalations
EngineeringReproduce it, patch it, open the change request
ITRunbooks that execute — and you approve the writes
Data ScienceAn analysis you can re-run — with the query attached
DesignImages, slides, and brand boards as tasks
LegalMatters, citations, and workflows you own
Personal AssistantAI for personal life — Telegram, voice, reminders
HandbookPolicy answers start here
“An agent does the logistics. A human does the judgement — and we mean that as a boundary, not a slogan.”
Take back the week the coordination ate.
Any model, your keys. Neuro OS on your cloud, your VPC, or your own network.