{"id":"d3820b50-80ce-4bbc-824e-7778b8cc9ff6","entityType":"agent","slug":"clawhub-skills-1kalin-afrexai-interview-architect","name":"afrexai-interview-architect","canonicalUrl":"https://www.xpersona.co/agent/clawhub-skills-1kalin-afrexai-interview-architect","canonicalPath":"/agent/clawhub-skills-1kalin-afrexai-interview-architect","generatedAt":"2026-10-09T20:10:30.670Z","source":"CLAWHUB","claimStatus":"UNCLAIMED","verificationTier":"NONE","summary":{"evidence":{"source":"editorial-content","verified":true,"confidence":"high","updatedAt":"2026-04-15T00:45:39.800Z","emptyReason":null},"description":"Interview Architect Interview Architect Complete hiring interview system — from job scorecard design through structured question banks, live evaluation rubrics, panel coordination, and offer decisions. Eliminates gut-feel hiring with evidence-based frameworks that predict on-the-job performance. Quick Start Tell me what you need: - \"Design interviews for [role]\" → Full interview plan (scorecard + questions + rubrics) - \"Create a scoreca","descriptionLabel":"Technical summary","evidenceSummary":"Capability contract not published. No trust telemetry is available yet. Last updated 4/15/2026.","installCommand":"clawhub skill install skills:1kalin:afrexai-interview-architect","sourceUrl":"https://github.com/openclaw/skills/tree/main/skills/1kalin/afrexai-interview-architect","homepage":null,"primaryLinks":[{"label":"View on ClawHub","url":"https://github.com/openclaw/skills/tree/main/skills/1kalin/afrexai-interview-architect","kind":"source"}],"safetyScore":84,"overallRank":62,"popularityScore":50,"trustScore":null,"claimedByName":null,"isOwner":false,"seoDescription":"Interview Architect Interview Architect Complete hiring interview system — from job scorecard design through structured question banks, live evaluation rubrics,"},"coverage":{"evidence":{"source":"public-profile","verified":false,"confidence":"medium","updatedAt":"2026-04-15T00:45:39.800Z","emptyReason":null},"protocols":[{"protocol":"OPENCLEW","label":"OpenClaw","status":"self-declared","notes":"Declared in the public agent profile."}],"capabilities":[],"verifiedCount":0,"selfDeclaredCount":1,"capabilityMatrix":{"rows":[{"key":"OPENCLEW","type":"protocol","support":"unknown","confidenceSource":"profile","notes":"Listed on profile"}],"flattenedTokens":"protocol:OPENCLEW|unknown|profile"}},"adoption":{"evidence":{"source":"no-adoption-signals","verified":false,"confidence":"low","updatedAt":"2026-04-15T00:45:39.800Z","emptyReason":"No source adoption metrics were available."},"stars":null,"forks":null,"downloads":null,"packageName":null,"latestVersion":null,"tractionLabel":null},"release":{"evidence":{"source":"agent-index","verified":false,"confidence":"medium","updatedAt":"2026-02-25T06:17:34.921Z","emptyReason":null},"lastUpdatedAt":"2026-04-15T00:45:39.800Z","lastCrawledAt":"2026-02-25T06:17:34.921Z","lastIndexedAt":null,"nextCrawlAt":"2026-02-26T06:17:34.921Z","lastVerifiedAt":null,"highlights":[]},"execution":{"evidence":{"source":"CLAWHUB","verified":false,"confidence":"low","updatedAt":null,"emptyReason":"No published capability contract is available yet."},"installCommand":"clawhub skill install skills:1kalin:afrexai-interview-architect","setupComplexity":"low","setupSteps":["Setup complexity is LOW. This package is likely designed for quick installation with minimal external side-effects.","Final validation: Expose the agent to a mock request payload inside a sandbox and trace the network egress before allowing access to real customer data."],"contract":{"contractStatus":"missing","authModes":[],"requires":[],"forbidden":[],"supportsMcp":false,"supportsA2a":false,"supportsStreaming":false,"inputSchemaRef":null,"outputSchemaRef":null,"dataRegion":null,"contractUpdatedAt":null,"sourceUpdatedAt":null,"freshnessSeconds":null},"invocationGuide":{"preferredApi":{"snapshotUrl":"https://www.xpersona.co/api/v1/agents/clawhub-skills-1kalin-afrexai-interview-architect/snapshot","contractUrl":"https://www.xpersona.co/api/v1/agents/clawhub-skills-1kalin-afrexai-interview-architect/contract","trustUrl":"https://www.xpersona.co/api/v1/agents/clawhub-skills-1kalin-afrexai-interview-architect/trust"},"curlExamples":["curl -s \"https://www.xpersona.co/api/v1/agents/clawhub-skills-1kalin-afrexai-interview-architect/snapshot\"","curl -s \"https://www.xpersona.co/api/v1/agents/clawhub-skills-1kalin-afrexai-interview-architect/contract\"","curl -s \"https://www.xpersona.co/api/v1/agents/clawhub-skills-1kalin-afrexai-interview-architect/trust\""],"jsonRequestTemplate":{"query":"summarize this repo","constraints":{"maxLatencyMs":2000,"protocolPreference":["OPENCLEW"]}},"jsonResponseTemplate":{"ok":true,"result":{"summary":"...","confidence":0.9},"meta":{"source":"CLAWHUB","generatedAt":"2026-10-09T20:10:30.670Z"}},"retryPolicy":{"maxAttempts":3,"backoffMs":[500,1500,3500],"retryableConditions":["HTTP_429","HTTP_503","NETWORK_TIMEOUT"]}},"endpoints":{"dossierUrl":"https://www.xpersona.co/api/v1/agents/clawhub-skills-1kalin-afrexai-interview-architect/dossier","snapshotUrl":"https://www.xpersona.co/api/v1/agents/clawhub-skills-1kalin-afrexai-interview-architect/snapshot","contractUrl":"https://www.xpersona.co/api/v1/agents/clawhub-skills-1kalin-afrexai-interview-architect/contract","trustUrl":"https://www.xpersona.co/api/v1/agents/clawhub-skills-1kalin-afrexai-interview-architect/trust"}},"reliability":{"evidence":{"source":"runtime-metrics","verified":false,"confidence":"low","updatedAt":null,"emptyReason":"No trust, reliability, or runtime telemetry is available."},"trust":{"status":"unavailable","handshakeStatus":"UNKNOWN","verificationFreshnessHours":null,"reputationScore":null,"p95LatencyMs":null,"successRate30d":null,"fallbackRate":null,"attempts30d":null,"trustUpdatedAt":null,"trustConfidence":"unknown","sourceUpdatedAt":null,"freshnessSeconds":null},"decisionGuardrails":{"doNotUseIf":["Contract metadata is missing or unavailable for deterministic execution."],"safeUseWhen":[],"riskFlags":["missing_or_unavailable_contract","trust_data_unavailable","schema_references_missing"],"operationalConfidence":"low"},"executionMetrics":{"observedLatencyMsP50":null,"observedLatencyMsP95":null,"estimatedCostUsd":null,"uptime30d":null,"rateLimitRpm":null,"rateLimitBurst":null,"lastVerifiedAt":null,"verificationSource":null},"runtimeMetrics":{"successRate":null,"avgLatencyMs":null,"avgCostUsd":null,"hallucinationRate":null,"retryRate":null,"disputeRate":null,"p50Latency":null,"p95Latency":null,"lastUpdated":null}},"benchmarks":{"evidence":{"source":"no-benchmark-data","verified":false,"confidence":"low","updatedAt":null,"emptyReason":"No benchmark suites or observed failure patterns are available."},"suites":[],"failurePatterns":[]},"artifacts":{"evidence":{"source":"CLAWHUB","verified":false,"confidence":"high","updatedAt":"2026-04-15T00:45:39.800Z","emptyReason":null},"readme":"# Interview Architect\n\nComplete hiring interview system — from job scorecard design through structured question banks, live evaluation rubrics, panel coordination, and offer decisions. Eliminates gut-feel hiring with evidence-based frameworks that predict on-the-job performance.\n\n## Quick Start\n\nTell me what you need:\n- \"Design interviews for [role]\" → Full interview plan (scorecard + questions + rubrics)\n- \"Create a scorecard for [role]\" → A-Player definition with measurable outcomes\n- \"Generate questions for [skill/competency]\" → Targeted question bank\n- \"Build a take-home assignment for [role]\" → Technical assessment with rubric\n- \"Evaluate this candidate\" → Structured debrief with scoring\n- \"Audit our interview process\" → Bias check + effectiveness review\n\n---\n\n## Phase 1: Job Scorecard (Define Before You Evaluate)\n\n**Rule: Never look at a resume before defining what \"great\" looks like.**\n\n### Scorecard Template\n\n```yaml\nscorecard:\n  role: \"[Title]\"\n  level: \"[Junior/Mid/Senior/Staff/Principal/Director/VP]\"\n  team: \"[Team name]\"\n  hiring_manager: \"[Name]\"\n  created: \"YYYY-MM-DD\"\n\n  mission:\n    statement: \"[One sentence: why does this role exist?]\"\n    success_metric: \"[How we'll know this hire was successful in 12 months]\"\n\n  outcomes:\n    # 3-5 specific, measurable results expected in first 12 months\n    - outcome: \"[e.g., Reduce deployment time from 45min to <10min]\"\n      measure: \"[Metric: deployment duration, measured via CI/CD logs]\"\n      timeline: \"Q1-Q2\"\n      priority: \"critical\"\n\n    - outcome: \"[e.g., Ship v2 API with 99.9% uptime]\"\n      measure: \"[Uptime %, error rate, customer adoption]\"\n      timeline: \"Q2-Q3\"\n      priority: \"critical\"\n\n    - outcome: \"[e.g., Mentor 2 junior engineers to mid-level competency]\"\n      measure: \"[Promotion readiness assessment, PR quality metrics]\"\n      timeline: \"Q3-Q4\"\n      priority: \"important\"\n\n  competencies:\n    technical:\n      must_have:\n        - name: \"[e.g., System design]\"\n          level: \"[Novice/Competent/Proficient/Expert]\"\n          evidence: \"[What demonstrates this: e.g., designed systems handling 10K+ RPS]\"\n        - name: \"[e.g., TypeScript/React]\"\n          level: \"Proficient\"\n          evidence: \"[Shipped production TS/React apps, not just tutorials]\"\n      nice_to_have:\n        - name: \"[e.g., Kubernetes]\"\n          level: \"Competent\"\n\n    behavioral:\n      must_have:\n        - name: \"Ownership\"\n          definition: \"Takes responsibility for outcomes, not just tasks. Doesn't wait to be told.\"\n          anti_pattern: \"Says 'that's not my job' or 'I was told to do X'\"\n        - name: \"Communication\"\n          definition: \"Explains complex ideas simply. Writes clear docs. Raises issues early.\"\n          anti_pattern: \"Surprises stakeholders. Can't explain their own work.\"\n        - name: \"Growth mindset\"\n          definition: \"Seeks feedback. Admits mistakes. Improves from failure.\"\n          anti_pattern: \"Defensive about criticism. Repeats same mistakes.\"\n      nice_to_have:\n        - name: \"[e.g., Cross-functional leadership]\"\n\n    cultural:\n      values_alignment:\n        - \"[Company value 1: what this looks like in practice]\"\n        - \"[Company value 2: what this looks like in practice]\"\n      anti_signals:\n        - \"[Red flag behavior 1]\"\n        - \"[Red flag behavior 2]\"\n\n  compensation:\n    band: \"[min - max]\"\n    equity: \"[range if applicable]\"\n    flexibility: \"[What's negotiable]\"\n\n  deal_breakers:\n    # Hard no's — instant disqualification\n    - \"[e.g., Cannot start within 4 weeks]\"\n    - \"[e.g., No experience with production systems at scale]\"\n    - \"[e.g., Requires >30% above band]\"\n```\n\n### Scorecard Quality Check\n\nBefore proceeding, verify:\n- [ ] Mission statement is one sentence (not a paragraph)\n- [ ] Each outcome has a specific number or metric (not \"improve\" or \"help with\")\n- [ ] Competencies distinguish must-have from nice-to-have\n- [ ] Anti-patterns defined for each behavioral competency\n- [ ] Deal breakers are objective (not subjective feelings)\n- [ ] Band is realistic for the market (check levels.fyi, Glassdoor)\n\n---\n\n## Phase 2: Interview Structure Design\n\n### Interview Loop Template\n\n```yaml\ninterview_loop:\n  role: \"[from scorecard]\"\n  total_duration: \"[X hours across Y sessions]\"\n  \n  stages:\n    - stage: \"Resume Screen\"\n      duration: \"5-10 min\"\n      who: \"Recruiter or hiring manager\"\n      evaluates: [\"deal_breakers\", \"basic_qualification\"]\n      pass_rate_target: \"30-40%\"\n      \n    - stage: \"Phone Screen\"\n      duration: \"30 min\"\n      who: \"Hiring manager\"\n      evaluates: [\"communication\", \"motivation\", \"outcome_1_capability\"]\n      format: \"Structured conversation\"\n      pass_rate_target: \"50%\"\n      \n    - stage: \"Technical Assessment\"\n      duration: \"60-90 min\"\n      who: \"Senior engineer\"\n      evaluates: [\"technical_competencies\"]\n      format: \"Live coding OR take-home (see Phase 4)\"\n      pass_rate_target: \"40-50%\"\n      \n    - stage: \"System Design\"\n      duration: \"45-60 min\"\n      who: \"Staff+ engineer\"\n      evaluates: [\"system_design\", \"trade_off_thinking\", \"communication\"]\n      format: \"Whiteboard/collaborative design\"\n      pass_rate_target: \"50%\"\n      applies_to: \"Senior+ only\"\n      \n    - stage: \"Behavioral Deep-Dive\"\n      duration: \"45-60 min\"\n      who: \"Hiring manager + cross-functional partner\"\n      evaluates: [\"behavioral_competencies\", \"cultural_values\"]\n      format: \"STAR-based structured interview\"\n      pass_rate_target: \"60%\"\n      \n    - stage: \"Team Fit / Reverse Interview\"\n      duration: \"30 min\"\n      who: \"2-3 potential teammates\"\n      evaluates: [\"collaboration_style\", \"candidate_questions\"]\n      format: \"Informal but structured\"\n      pass_rate_target: \"80%\"\n      \n    - stage: \"Hiring Manager Final\"\n      duration: \"30 min\"\n      who: \"Hiring manager\"\n      evaluates: [\"remaining_concerns\", \"motivation\", \"offer_readiness\"]\n      format: \"Conversation\"\n\n  timeline:\n    screen_to_onsite: \"< 5 business days\"\n    onsite_to_decision: \"< 2 business days\"\n    decision_to_offer: \"< 1 business day\"\n    total_process: \"< 3 weeks\"\n```\n\n### Level-Appropriate Loop Adjustments\n\n| Level | Skip | Add | Emphasis |\n|-------|------|-----|----------|\n| Junior (0-2 yr) | System design | Pair programming, learning ability | Potential > experience |\n| Mid (2-5 yr) | — | — | Balanced: execution + growth |\n| Senior (5-8 yr) | — | Architecture discussion | Impact, ownership, mentoring |\n| Staff (8+ yr) | Basic coding | Design doc review, strategy | Influence, technical vision |\n| Principal | Basic coding | Vision presentation, exec interview | Org-wide impact |\n| Manager | Live coding | Skip-level, cross-functional | People outcomes, strategy |\n| Director+ | All IC technical | Board/exec presentation | Business impact, org building |\n\n---\n\n## Phase 3: Question Banks\n\n### Behavioral Questions (STAR Format)\n\n**For each question below:**\n- Ask the main question\n- Then probe with: \"Walk me through specifically what YOU did\" (not the team)\n- Then probe with: \"What was the measurable result?\"\n- Watch for: vague answers, \"we\" without \"I\", unable to recall specifics\n\n#### Ownership & Initiative\n\n```\nQ: \"Tell me about a time you identified a problem no one asked you to fix, and you fixed it anyway.\"\n  Probe: \"How did you discover it? What did you do first? What was the outcome?\"\n  Green signal: Specific problem, proactive action, measurable impact\n  Red flag: Can't recall an example, or problem was trivial\n\nQ: \"Describe a project that failed or didn't meet expectations. What was your role?\"\n  Probe: \"What would you do differently? What did you learn?\"\n  Green signal: Owns their part, specific lessons, changed behavior afterward\n  Red flag: Blames others, no learning, defensive\n\nQ: \"Tell me about the last time you disagreed with your manager's technical decision.\"\n  Probe: \"How did you raise it? What happened? Would you do it differently?\"\n  Green signal: Respectful pushback with data, compromise or acceptance\n  Red flag: Never disagrees, or went around manager, or still bitter\n```\n\n#### Communication & Collaboration\n\n```\nQ: \"Describe the most complex technical concept you had to explain to a non-technical audience.\"\n  Probe: \"How did you know they understood? What would you change?\"\n  Green signal: Adapts language, checks understanding, uses analogies\n  Red flag: Talks down, uses jargon anyway, frustrated by the need\n\nQ: \"Tell me about a cross-team project that had conflicting priorities.\"\n  Probe: \"How did you align the teams? What trade-offs were made?\"\n  Green signal: Proactive communication, documented agreements, escalated appropriately\n  Red flag: Waited for someone else to resolve, or steamrolled\n\nQ: \"Give me an example of written communication that had significant impact.\"\n  Probe: \"What was the context? Who was the audience? What resulted?\"\n  Green signal: Design doc, RFC, post-mortem that changed decisions\n  Red flag: Can't think of one, or only Slack messages\n```\n\n#### Technical Excellence\n\n```\nQ: \"What's the best piece of code or system you've built? Walk me through it.\"\n  Probe: \"What trade-offs did you make? What would you change now?\"\n  Green signal: Deep understanding, clear trade-off reasoning, honest about flaws\n  Red flag: Can't go deep, no awareness of trade-offs\n\nQ: \"Tell me about a production incident you were involved in resolving.\"\n  Probe: \"How did you diagnose it? What was root cause? What prevented recurrence?\"\n  Green signal: Systematic debugging, root cause fix (not band-aid), prevention measures\n  Red flag: Only applied quick fix, blamed infrastructure, no follow-up\n\nQ: \"Describe a time you had to make a technical decision with incomplete information.\"\n  Probe: \"What did you know? What didn't you know? How did you decide?\"\n  Green signal: Explicit about unknowns, gathered what they could, made reversible decision\n  Red flag: Paralyzed, or overconfident without data\n```\n\n#### Leadership & Mentoring (Senior+)\n\n```\nQ: \"Tell me about someone you helped grow significantly in their career.\"\n  Probe: \"What did you specifically do? How did you know it was working?\"\n  Green signal: Specific actions (pair programming, stretch assignments, feedback), measurable growth\n  Red flag: \"I told them what to do\" or can't name anyone\n\nQ: \"Describe a technical strategy or vision you set for your team.\"\n  Probe: \"How did you get buy-in? How did you measure progress?\"\n  Green signal: Clear rationale, stakeholder alignment, adapted based on feedback\n  Red flag: Top-down mandate, or never set direction\n\nQ: \"Tell me about a time you had to say no to a stakeholder or product request.\"\n  Probe: \"How did you explain it? What was the outcome?\"\n  Green signal: Data-driven reasoning, offered alternatives, maintained relationship\n  Red flag: Just said no, or always says yes\n```\n\n### Forensic Resume Questions (Pressure Tests)\n\nFor each resume highlight, design verification questions:\n\n```\nPattern: \"[Impressive claim on resume]\"\n→ \"Walk me through [specific project]. What was the state when you joined?\"\n→ \"What was YOUR specific contribution vs the team's?\"\n→ \"What was the hardest technical problem YOU solved?\"\n→ \"If I called your manager from that time, what would they say was your biggest weakness?\"\n\nPattern: \"Led team of X\"\n→ \"How many people reported to you directly?\"\n→ \"Name someone you had to give tough feedback to. What happened?\"\n→ \"Who was the weakest performer? What did you do about it?\"\n\nPattern: \"Improved X by Y%\"\n→ \"What was the baseline measurement? How did you measure it?\"\n→ \"What was it before you started? After? How long did it take?\"\n→ \"What else changed during that period that could explain the improvement?\"\n\nPattern: \"Short tenure (< 1 year)\"\n→ \"Walk me through your decision to leave [company].\"\n→ \"What would your manager there say about your departure?\"\n→ \"What did you learn from that experience?\"\n\nPattern: \"Gap in employment\"\n→ Ask once, move on. Don't dwell. Valid reasons: health, family, travel, learning, job market.\n→ Red flag only if: story keeps changing, or they're evasive about a very long gap\n```\n\n### Future Simulation Questions (Performance Prediction)\n\nDesign scenario questions based on the actual role's outcomes:\n\n```\nTemplate:\n\"In this role, one of your first challenges will be [outcome from scorecard].\nThe current situation is [honest context]. \nWalk me through how you'd approach this in your first [timeframe].\"\n\nExample (Senior Backend):\n\"Our API currently handles 2K RPS but we need to scale to 50K by Q3.\nThe codebase is a 3-year-old Node.js monolith with PostgreSQL.\nBudget for infrastructure is $10K/mo. Team is 4 engineers including you.\nHow would you approach this?\"\n\nProbe sequence:\n1. \"What would you do in week 1?\" (Information gathering)\n2. \"What data would you need?\" (Analytical thinking)\n3. \"What are the biggest risks?\" (Risk awareness)\n4. \"If [constraint changes], how does your approach change?\" (Adaptability)\n5. \"How would you communicate progress to stakeholders?\" (Communication)\n\nScoring:\n5 — Structured approach, asks clarifying questions, identifies trade-offs, realistic timeline\n4 — Good approach with minor gaps\n3 — Reasonable but generic, doesn't probe assumptions\n2 — Jumps to solution without understanding problem\n1 — No coherent approach, or unrealistic\n```\n\n---\n\n## Phase 4: Technical Assessments\n\n### Live Coding Assessment Design\n\n```yaml\ncoding_assessment:\n  duration: \"60 min\"\n  structure:\n    warm_up: \"5 min — environment setup, introduce the problem\"\n    problem_1: \"20 min — core implementation\"\n    problem_2: \"25 min — extension or new problem\"\n    debrief: \"10 min — trade-offs discussion\"\n\n  problem_design_rules:\n    - Solvable in the time limit (test it yourself first — halve your time)\n    - Multiple valid approaches (no single \"right answer\")\n    - Extension points for stronger candidates\n    - Relevant to actual work (not algorithm puzzles unless role requires it)\n    - Candidate chooses their language\n    - Provide starter code / boilerplate to reduce setup time\n\n  evaluation_rubric:\n    problem_solving:\n      5: \"Breaks down problem, considers edge cases upfront, efficient approach\"\n      3: \"Gets to solution but misses edge cases or takes indirect path\"\n      1: \"Struggles to break down problem, no clear approach\"\n    \n    code_quality:\n      5: \"Clean, readable, well-named, handles errors, testable\"\n      3: \"Works but messy, some error handling, reasonable naming\"\n      1: \"Barely works, no error handling, unclear naming\"\n    \n    communication:\n      5: \"Thinks aloud, explains trade-offs, asks clarifying questions\"\n      3: \"Some explanation, responds to prompts\"\n      1: \"Silent, defensive about suggestions, doesn't explain reasoning\"\n    \n    testing_awareness:\n      5: \"Writes tests unprompted, considers edge cases, talks about test strategy\"\n      3: \"Writes tests when prompted, covers happy path\"\n      1: \"No testing consideration\"\n    \n    speed_and_fluency:\n      5: \"Fast, clearly experienced, language/tooling fluent\"\n      3: \"Reasonable pace, occasional lookups\"\n      1: \"Very slow, struggles with syntax/tooling\"\n\n  do_not:\n    - Ask trick questions or gotchas\n    - Time pressure beyond reasonable\n    - Penalize for looking things up\n    - Judge IDE/editor choice\n    - Ask questions that require proprietary knowledge\n```\n\n### Take-Home Assessment Design\n\n```yaml\ntake_home:\n  time_limit: \"3-4 hours (honor system, state clearly)\"\n  deadline: \"5-7 days from send\"\n  \n  problem_design:\n    - Real-world scenario (not academic)\n    - Clear requirements with defined scope\n    - Extension section for candidates who want to show more\n    - Starter repo with CI, linting, test framework pre-configured\n    \n  deliverables:\n    required:\n      - Working solution\n      - Tests (at minimum: happy path + 2 edge cases)\n      - README explaining approach, trade-offs, what you'd improve\n    optional:\n      - Architecture diagram\n      - Performance analysis\n      - Additional features from extension section\n  \n  evaluation_rubric:\n    functionality: \"30% — Does it work? Edge cases handled?\"\n    code_quality: \"25% — Clean, readable, maintainable, well-structured\"\n    testing: \"20% — Coverage, meaningful tests, edge cases\"\n    documentation: \"15% — README quality, trade-off explanations\"\n    extras: \"10% — Extension features, thoughtful additions\"\n\n  anti_gaming:\n    - Check git history (single mega-commit = suspicious)\n    - Ask about implementation details in follow-up interview\n    - Vary the problem slightly across candidates\n    - Time the follow-up discussion: over-engineered solutions + can't explain = red flag\n```\n\n### System Design Assessment (Senior+)\n\n```yaml\nsystem_design:\n  duration: \"45-60 min\"\n  structure:\n    requirements: \"10 min — clarify scope, constraints, scale\"\n    high_level: \"15 min — components, data flow, API design\"\n    deep_dive: \"15 min — pick 1-2 areas to go deep\"\n    trade_offs: \"10 min — discuss alternatives, failure modes\"\n    extensions: \"5 min — how would this evolve?\"\n\n  evaluation:\n    requirements_gathering:\n      5: \"Asks about scale, users, latency requirements, budget before designing\"\n      3: \"Some clarifying questions but misses key constraints\"\n      1: \"Jumps straight to drawing boxes\"\n    \n    high_level_design:\n      5: \"Clear components with well-defined boundaries, data flows make sense\"\n      3: \"Reasonable architecture but some unclear responsibilities\"\n      1: \"Vague boxes with arrows, can't explain data flow\"\n    \n    depth:\n      5: \"Deep knowledge in chosen area, considers failure modes, cites real experience\"\n      3: \"Good knowledge but stays surface level\"\n      1: \"Can't go deep on any component\"\n    \n    trade_off_awareness:\n      5: \"Explicitly names trade-offs, compares alternatives, knows when each fits\"\n      3: \"Acknowledges trade-offs when prompted\"\n      1: \"Presents one approach as the only option\"\n    \n    scalability:\n      5: \"Considers growth path, bottleneck identification, realistic scaling strategy\"\n      3: \"Basic scaling awareness\"\n      1: \"No consideration of scale or unrealistic assumptions\"\n```\n\n---\n\n## Phase 5: Evaluation & Decision\n\n### Per-Interviewer Scorecard\n\n```yaml\ninterviewer_scorecard:\n  candidate: \"[name]\"\n  interviewer: \"[name]\"\n  stage: \"[which interview]\"\n  date: \"YYYY-MM-DD\"\n  \n  # Score BEFORE reading other interviewers' feedback\n  overall: 1-5  # 1=Strong No, 2=Lean No, 3=Neutral, 4=Lean Yes, 5=Strong Yes\n  \n  competency_scores:\n    - competency: \"[from scorecard]\"\n      score: 1-5\n      evidence: \"[Specific quote or behavior observed]\"\n      \n    - competency: \"[from scorecard]\"\n      score: 1-5\n      evidence: \"[Specific quote or behavior observed]\"\n  \n  green_signals:\n    - \"[Specific positive indicator with evidence]\"\n    \n  red_flags:\n    - \"[Specific concern with evidence]\"\n    \n  questions_for_next_interviewer:\n    - \"[What to probe further]\"\n\n  # IMPORTANT: Submit before debrief. Do not change after discussion.\n```\n\n### Debrief Protocol\n\n```\n1. BEFORE debrief:\n   - All interviewers submit scorecards independently\n   - Hiring manager collects but does NOT share scores\n\n2. DEBRIEF structure (30-45 min):\n   a. Each interviewer states their overall vote FIRST (no explanation yet)\n      → This prevents anchoring bias from persuasive speakers\n   \n   b. Lowest scorer goes first (explain concerns)\n      → Prevents positive bias from drowning out concerns\n   \n   c. Highest scorer responds\n   \n   d. Open discussion — focus on EVIDENCE not feelings\n      → \"They seemed smart\" is not evidence\n      → \"They designed a cache invalidation strategy that handled...\" IS evidence\n   \n   e. Address conflicting signals:\n      → If strong yes + strong no on same competency, that's the discussion\n      → Resolve with: \"What specific behavior did you observe?\"\n   \n   f. Final vote (all interviewers):\n      → Strong Hire / Hire / No Hire / Strong No Hire\n      → Any \"Strong No Hire\" triggers discussion but NOT automatic rejection\n      → Hiring manager makes final call but must document reasoning\n\n3. AFTER debrief:\n   - Decision recorded with reasoning\n   - Feedback compiled for candidate (regardless of outcome)\n   - Action items assigned (offer prep or rejection with feedback)\n```\n\n### Scoring Decision Matrix\n\n```\nStrong Hire (all 4-5):\n  → Make offer within 24 hours\n  → Expedite process — strong candidates have multiple offers\n\nHire (mix of 3-5, no 1s):\n  → Make offer within 48 hours\n  → Address any 3-scores with targeted onboarding plan\n\nBorderline (mix of 2-4):\n  → Additional data needed — one more focused interview on weak areas\n  → Set a deadline: if still borderline after additional data → No Hire\n  → \"When in doubt, don't hire\" — the cost of a bad hire > cost of continuing search\n\nNo Hire (any 1, or multiple 2s):\n  → Decline with specific, constructive feedback\n  → Document clearly for future reference (candidate may reapply)\n\nStrong No Hire (multiple 1s or deal breaker):\n  → Immediate decline\n  → Review: did we miss this in screening? Fix the funnel.\n```\n\n---\n\n## Phase 6: Bias Mitigation\n\n### Pre-Interview Bias Checks\n\n```\nBefore each interview, remind yourself:\n□ I will evaluate against the SCORECARD, not my \"gut feeling\"\n□ I will give the same weight to disconfirming evidence as confirming\n□ I will not let one great/terrible answer color the entire evaluation\n□ I will not compare this candidate to the last one — compare to the scorecard\n□ I will note specific behaviors, not general impressions\n□ I will not evaluate \"culture fit\" as \"would I have a beer with them\"\n```\n\n### Common Biases in Hiring\n\n| Bias | What It Looks Like | Mitigation |\n|------|--------------------|------------|\n| **Halo effect** | Great at coding → assume great at everything | Score each competency independently |\n| **Horn effect** | Weak communication → assume weak technically | Same: score independently |\n| **Similarity bias** | \"Reminds me of me\" → favorable rating | Evaluate against scorecard, not self |\n| **Anchoring** | First impression sets the tone | Score after all questions, not during |\n| **Confirmation bias** | Early positive → only notice positives | Actively look for counter-evidence |\n| **Contrast effect** | Looks great after a weak candidate | Compare to scorecard, not other candidates |\n| **Recency bias** | Remember last answer, forget first | Take notes during interview |\n| **Attribution error** | Success = skill, failure = circumstances | Probe both: \"What went wrong? What helped?\" |\n| **Leniency bias** | Avoid conflict, rate everyone 3-4 | Force yourself to use the full 1-5 scale |\n| **Urgency bias** | \"We need someone NOW\" → lower bar | Never lower scorecard standards — extend timeline instead |\n\n### Structured Interview Rules\n\n1. **Same questions for same role** — every candidate gets the same core questions\n2. **Score immediately after** — before discussing with anyone\n3. **Evidence-based only** — every score needs a specific observation\n4. **Diverse panel** — at least one interviewer from a different team/background\n5. **Blind resume screen** — remove name, school, company names for initial screen (if possible)\n6. **No leading questions** — \"You're probably great at X, right?\" → \"Tell me about your experience with X\"\n7. **Time-boxed** — same duration for every candidate (don't cut short or extend based on vibes)\n\n---\n\n## Phase 7: Candidate Experience\n\n### Communication Templates\n\n**After each stage — within 24 hours:**\n\n```\nADVANCING:\n\"Hi [name], thank you for your time today. We enjoyed our conversation about [specific topic]. \nWe'd like to move forward with [next stage]. [Interviewer name] will be speaking with you \nabout [topic]. Available times: [options]. \nAny questions before then? — [recruiter name]\"\n\nREJECTION (after phone screen):\n\"Hi [name], thank you for taking the time to speak with us about [role].\nAfter careful consideration, we've decided not to move forward at this stage.\n[One specific, constructive piece of feedback if appropriate].\nWe'll keep your information on file and may reach out for future opportunities that \nalign more closely. Wishing you the best in your search. — [name]\"\n\nREJECTION (after onsite):\n\"Hi [name], thank you for investing [X hours] in our interview process.\nWe were impressed by [specific positive], but ultimately decided to move forward \nwith a candidate whose [specific competency] more closely matches our current needs.\nFeedback: [1-2 specific, actionable items].\nWe genuinely appreciated your time and would welcome a future conversation \nif circumstances change. — [hiring manager name]\"\n\nOFFER (verbal, then written within 24h):\n\"Hi [name], I'm excited to share that we'd like to offer you the [role] position.\nWe were particularly impressed by [specific evidence from interviews].\nHere's what we're proposing: [comp summary]. I'll send the formal offer letter \nwithin 24 hours. Do you have any initial questions? — [hiring manager]\"\n```\n\n### Candidate Experience Scorecard\n\nAfter every hire (and quarterly for all candidates):\n\n| Dimension | Target | How to Measure |\n|-----------|--------|----------------|\n| Time to schedule | < 48h between stages | Track in ATS |\n| Interviewer preparedness | 100% read scorecard before | Post-interview survey |\n| Communication timeliness | < 24h response | Track in ATS |\n| Feedback quality | Specific + actionable | Candidate survey |\n| Overall experience | 4+/5 | Candidate survey (all, not just hires) |\n| Offer acceptance rate | > 80% | Track in ATS |\n\n---\n\n## Phase 8: Process Audit & Improvement\n\n### Quarterly Hiring Review\n\n```yaml\nquarterly_review:\n  period: \"Q[N] YYYY\"\n  \n  funnel_metrics:\n    applications: N\n    screens_passed: N  # → Screen pass rate\n    onsites: N         # → Onsite conversion rate  \n    offers: N          # → Offer rate\n    accepts: N         # → Acceptance rate\n    \n  quality_metrics:\n    ninety_day_retention: \"X%\"\n    manager_satisfaction_90d: \"X/5\"\n    time_to_productivity: \"X weeks\"\n    regretted_attrition_1yr: \"X%\"\n    \n  process_metrics:\n    time_to_fill: \"X days (target: <30)\"\n    time_in_stage:\n      screen: \"X days\"\n      onsite: \"X days\"  \n      decision: \"X days\"\n      offer: \"X days\"\n    interviewer_calibration: \"score variance across interviewers\"\n    \n  actions:\n    - \"[Improvement 1 based on metrics]\"\n    - \"[Improvement 2]\"\n```\n\n### Interview Question Effectiveness Tracking\n\nFor each question in your bank, track:\n\n```yaml\nquestion_effectiveness:\n  question: \"[question text]\"\n  times_asked: N\n  \n  signal_quality:\n    strong_differentiator: N  # Times this question clearly separated strong/weak\n    no_signal: N              # Times everyone answered similarly\n    confusing: N              # Times candidates misunderstood\n    \n  # If no_signal > 50% → Replace the question\n  # If confusing > 20% → Reword the question\n  # If strong_differentiator > 70% → Keep and promote\n```\n\n### Interviewer Calibration\n\n```\nMonthly: Compare interviewer scores across candidates\n- Interviewer A averages 4.2, Interviewer B averages 2.8 → calibration needed\n- Run calibration session: review same candidate, discuss scoring differences\n- Goal: interviewers should be within 0.5 points on average for same candidates\n\nTraining for new interviewers:\n1. Shadow 3 interviews (observe, don't participate)\n2. Reverse shadow 2 interviews (conduct, observed by experienced interviewer)\n3. Solo with debrief for 3 interviews\n4. Full autonomy after calibration check\n```\n\n---\n\n## Edge Cases\n\n### Internal Candidates\n- Use SAME scorecard as external (fairness)\n- Different question strategy: focus on future role, not past (you already know their past)\n- If not selected: manager delivers feedback personally, development plan, timeline for re-candidacy\n- Never promise the internal candidate gets special treatment\n\n### Executive Hiring\n- Add: reference checks (5+ structured, including back-channel)\n- Add: board/exec team dinner (culture, not evaluation)\n- Add: 90-day plan presentation as final stage\n- Extended scorecard: strategic thinking, board management, talent magnetism\n- Use executive search firm for sourcing, but own evaluation internally\n\n### High-Volume Hiring (10+ same role)\n- Standardize EVERYTHING: same questions, same rubric, same order\n- Use structured scoring sheets, not free-form notes\n- Batch calibration sessions weekly\n- Consider: group assessment centers for initial stages\n- Track: quality variance across hiring managers (should be low)\n\n### Remote/Async Interviews\n- Test tech setup before the interview (not during)\n- Camera on (both sides) — non-verbal cues matter\n- Record (with consent) for calibration purposes\n- Take-home > live coding for timezone-challenged candidates\n- Bias alert: don't penalize for background noise, accent, or non-native English fluency\n\n### Boomerang Employees\n- Treat as new candidate (things change)\n- Skip: basic company knowledge questions\n- Focus: why they left, what changed, what they learned outside\n- Check: has the team/role changed since they left? Do current team members want them back?\n\n### Counteroffers\n- If candidate receives counteroffer:\n  - Don't panic-increase. Your offer should already be fair.\n  - \"We made our best offer based on the value of the role. We'd love to have you, but understand if you decide to stay.\"\n  - Statistics: 80% of people who accept counteroffers leave within 18 months anyway\n  - If they stay: respect it, keep the door open\n\n---\n\n## Natural Language Commands\n\n| Say | I Do |\n|-----|------|\n| \"Design interviews for [role]\" | Full loop: scorecard + structure + questions + rubrics |\n| \"Create a scorecard for [role]\" | A-Player definition with outcomes and competencies |\n| \"Generate behavioral questions for [competency]\" | STAR questions with probes and scoring |\n| \"Build a take-home for [role]\" | Assessment with rubric and anti-gaming measures |\n| \"Design a system design interview for [level]\" | Structure + evaluation rubric |\n| \"Evaluate candidate [name]\" | Structured debrief template with scoring |\n| \"Create a phone screen for [role]\" | 30-min structured screen with pass/fail criteria |\n| \"Write rejection feedback for [candidate]\" | Specific, constructive rejection message |\n| \"Audit our interview process\" | Full process review with metrics and recommendations |\n| \"Calibrate interviewers\" | Calibration session plan with scoring alignment |\n| \"Design interview for [role] at [company stage]\" | Adjusted for startup/growth/enterprise context |\n| \"Generate reference check questions for [role]\" | Structured reference interview guide |\n","readmeExcerpt":"Interview Architect Complete hiring interview system — from job scorecard design through structured question banks, live evaluation rubrics, panel coordination, and offer decisions. Eliminates gut-feel hiring with evidence-based frameworks that predict on-the-job performance. Quick Start Tell me what you need: - \"Design interviews for [role]\" → Full interview plan (scorecard + questions + rubrics) - \"Create a scoreca","codeSnippets":[],"executableExamples":[{"language":"yaml","snippet":"scorecard:\n  role: \"[Title]\"\n  level: \"[Junior/Mid/Senior/Staff/Principal/Director/VP]\"\n  team: \"[Team name]\"\n  hiring_manager: \"[Name]\"\n  created: \"YYYY-MM-DD\"\n\n  mission:\n    statement: \"[One sentence: why does this role exist?]\"\n    success_metric: \"[How we'll know this hire was successful in 12 months]\"\n\n  outcomes:\n    # 3-5 specific, measurable results expected in first 12 months\n    - outcome: \"[e.g., Reduce deployment time from 45min to <10min]\"\n      measure: \"[Metric: deployment duration, measured via CI/CD logs]\"\n      timeline: \"Q1-Q2\"\n      priority: \"critical\"\n\n    - outcome: \"[e.g., Ship v2 API with 99.9% uptime]\"\n      measure: \"[Uptime %, error rate, customer adoption]\"\n      timeline: \"Q2-Q3\"\n      priority: \"critical\"\n\n    - outcome: \"[e.g., Mentor 2 junior engineers to mid-level competency]\"\n      measure: \"[Promotion readiness assessment, PR quality metrics]\"\n      timeline: \"Q3-Q4\"\n      priority: \"important\"\n\n  competencies:\n    technical:\n      must_have:\n        - name: \"[e.g., System design]\"\n          level: \"[Novice/Competent/Proficient/Expert]\"\n          evidence: \"[What demonstrates this: e.g., designed systems handling 10K+ RPS]\"\n        - name: \"[e.g., TypeScript/React]\"\n          level: \"Proficient\"\n          evidence: \"[Shipped production TS/React apps, not just tutorials]\"\n      nice_to_have:\n        - name: \"[e.g., Kubernetes]\"\n          level: \"Competent\"\n\n    behavioral:\n      must_have:\n        - name: \"Ownership\"\n          definition: \"Takes responsibility for outcomes, not just tasks. Doesn't wait to be told.\"\n          anti_pattern: \"Says 'that's not my job' or 'I was told to do X'\"\n        - name: \"Communication\"\n          definition: \"Explains complex ideas simply. Writes clear docs. Raises issues early.\"\n          anti_pattern: \"Surprises stakeholders. Can't explain their own work.\"\n        - name: \"Growth mindset\"\n          definition: \"Seeks feedback. Admits mistakes. Improves from failure.\"\n          anti_pattern: \"Def"},{"language":"yaml","snippet":"interview_loop:\n  role: \"[from scorecard]\"\n  total_duration: \"[X hours across Y sessions]\"\n  \n  stages:\n    - stage: \"Resume Screen\"\n      duration: \"5-10 min\"\n      who: \"Recruiter or hiring manager\"\n      evaluates: [\"deal_breakers\", \"basic_qualification\"]\n      pass_rate_target: \"30-40%\"\n      \n    - stage: \"Phone Screen\"\n      duration: \"30 min\"\n      who: \"Hiring manager\"\n      evaluates: [\"communication\", \"motivation\", \"outcome_1_capability\"]\n      format: \"Structured conversation\"\n      pass_rate_target: \"50%\"\n      \n    - stage: \"Technical Assessment\"\n      duration: \"60-90 min\"\n      who: \"Senior engineer\"\n      evaluates: [\"technical_competencies\"]\n      format: \"Live coding OR take-home (see Phase 4)\"\n      pass_rate_target: \"40-50%\"\n      \n    - stage: \"System Design\"\n      duration: \"45-60 min\"\n      who: \"Staff+ engineer\"\n      evaluates: [\"system_design\", \"trade_off_thinking\", \"communication\"]\n      format: \"Whiteboard/collaborative design\"\n      pass_rate_target: \"50%\"\n      applies_to: \"Senior+ only\"\n      \n    - stage: \"Behavioral Deep-Dive\"\n      duration: \"45-60 min\"\n      who: \"Hiring manager + cross-functional partner\"\n      evaluates: [\"behavioral_competencies\", \"cultural_values\"]\n      format: \"STAR-based structured interview\"\n      pass_rate_target: \"60%\"\n      \n    - stage: \"Team Fit / Reverse Interview\"\n      duration: \"30 min\"\n      who: \"2-3 potential teammates\"\n      evaluates: [\"collaboration_style\", \"candidate_questions\"]\n      format: \"Informal but structured\"\n      pass_rate_target: \"80%\"\n      \n    - stage: \"Hiring Manager Final\"\n      duration: \"30 min\"\n      who: \"Hiring manager\"\n      evaluates: [\"remaining_concerns\", \"motivation\", \"offer_readiness\"]\n      format: \"Conversation\"\n\n  timeline:\n    screen_to_onsite: \"< 5 business days\"\n    onsite_to_decision: \"< 2 business days\"\n    decision_to_offer: \"< 1 business day\"\n    total_process: \"< 3 weeks\""},{"language":"text","snippet":"Q: \"Tell me about a time you identified a problem no one asked you to fix, and you fixed it anyway.\"\n  Probe: \"How did you discover it? What did you do first? What was the outcome?\"\n  Green signal: Specific problem, proactive action, measurable impact\n  Red flag: Can't recall an example, or problem was trivial\n\nQ: \"Describe a project that failed or didn't meet expectations. What was your role?\"\n  Probe: \"What would you do differently? What did you learn?\"\n  Green signal: Owns their part, specific lessons, changed behavior afterward\n  Red flag: Blames others, no learning, defensive\n\nQ: \"Tell me about the last time you disagreed with your manager's technical decision.\"\n  Probe: \"How did you raise it? What happened? Would you do it differently?\"\n  Green signal: Respectful pushback with data, compromise or acceptance\n  Red flag: Never disagrees, or went around manager, or still bitter"},{"language":"text","snippet":"Q: \"Describe the most complex technical concept you had to explain to a non-technical audience.\"\n  Probe: \"How did you know they understood? What would you change?\"\n  Green signal: Adapts language, checks understanding, uses analogies\n  Red flag: Talks down, uses jargon anyway, frustrated by the need\n\nQ: \"Tell me about a cross-team project that had conflicting priorities.\"\n  Probe: \"How did you align the teams? What trade-offs were made?\"\n  Green signal: Proactive communication, documented agreements, escalated appropriately\n  Red flag: Waited for someone else to resolve, or steamrolled\n\nQ: \"Give me an example of written communication that had significant impact.\"\n  Probe: \"What was the context? Who was the audience? What resulted?\"\n  Green signal: Design doc, RFC, post-mortem that changed decisions\n  Red flag: Can't think of one, or only Slack messages"},{"language":"text","snippet":"Q: \"What's the best piece of code or system you've built? Walk me through it.\"\n  Probe: \"What trade-offs did you make? What would you change now?\"\n  Green signal: Deep understanding, clear trade-off reasoning, honest about flaws\n  Red flag: Can't go deep, no awareness of trade-offs\n\nQ: \"Tell me about a production incident you were involved in resolving.\"\n  Probe: \"How did you diagnose it? What was root cause? What prevented recurrence?\"\n  Green signal: Systematic debugging, root cause fix (not band-aid), prevention measures\n  Red flag: Only applied quick fix, blamed infrastructure, no follow-up\n\nQ: \"Describe a time you had to make a technical decision with incomplete information.\"\n  Probe: \"What did you know? What didn't you know? How did you decide?\"\n  Green signal: Explicit about unknowns, gathered what they could, made reversible decision\n  Red flag: Paralyzed, or overconfident without data"},{"language":"text","snippet":"Q: \"Tell me about someone you helped grow significantly in their career.\"\n  Probe: \"What did you specifically do? How did you know it was working?\"\n  Green signal: Specific actions (pair programming, stretch assignments, feedback), measurable growth\n  Red flag: \"I told them what to do\" or can't name anyone\n\nQ: \"Describe a technical strategy or vision you set for your team.\"\n  Probe: \"How did you get buy-in? How did you measure progress?\"\n  Green signal: Clear rationale, stakeholder alignment, adapted based on feedback\n  Red flag: Top-down mandate, or never set direction\n\nQ: \"Tell me about a time you had to say no to a stakeholder or product request.\"\n  Probe: \"How did you explain it? What was the outcome?\"\n  Green signal: Data-driven reasoning, offered alternatives, maintained relationship\n  Red flag: Just said no, or always says yes"}],"parameters":{},"dependencies":[],"permissions":[],"extractedFiles":[],"languages":["typescript"],"docsSourceLabel":"CLAWHUB","editorialOverview":"Interview Architect Interview Architect Complete hiring interview system — from job scorecard design through structured question banks, live evaluation rubrics, panel coordination, and offer decisions. Eliminates gut-feel hiring with evidence-based frameworks that predict on-the-job performance. Quick Start Tell me what you need: - \"Design interviews for [role]\" → Full interview plan (scorecard + questions + rubrics) - \"Create a scoreca","editorialQuality":{"score":100,"threshold":65,"status":"ready","wordCount":372,"uniquenessScore":69,"reasons":[]}},"media":{"evidence":{"source":"no-media","verified":false,"confidence":"low","updatedAt":"2026-04-15T00:45:39.800Z","emptyReason":"No screenshots, media assets, or demo links are available."},"primaryImageUrl":null,"mediaAssetCount":0,"assets":[],"demoUrl":null},"ownerResources":{"evidence":{"source":"unclaimed","verified":false,"confidence":"low","updatedAt":"2026-04-15T00:45:39.800Z","emptyReason":"This page has not been claimed by the agent owner."},"hasCustomPage":false,"customPageUpdatedAt":null,"customLinks":[],"structuredLinks":{"docsUrl":null,"demoUrl":null,"supportUrl":null,"pricingUrl":null,"statusUrl":null},"customPage":null},"relatedAgents":{"evidence":{"source":"protocol-neighbors","verified":false,"confidence":"medium","updatedAt":"2026-10-09T20:10:30.670Z","emptyReason":null},"items":[{"id":"8ebccd8e-3863-4187-8355-c3f14e1f9edf","entityType":"agent","canonicalPath":"/agent/iofficeai-aionui","slug":"iofficeai-aionui","name":"AionUi","description":"Free, local, open-source 24/7 Cowork app and OpenClaw for Gemini CLI, Claude Code, Codex, OpenCode, Qwen Code, Goose CLI, Auggie, and more | 🌟 Star if you like it!","url":"https://github.com/iOfficeAI/AionUi","homepage":"https://www.aionui.com","source":"GITHUB_REPOS","protocols":["MCP","OPENCLAW"],"capabilities":[],"safetyScore":100,"overallRank":70,"updatedAt":"2026-10-09T19:11:12.944Z","createdAt":"2026-02-25T03:38:16.584Z","downloads":null},{"id":"b917f68a-ebff-438e-84f8-3f4b2494c0bc","entityType":"agent","canonicalPath":"/agent/activepieces-activepieces","slug":"activepieces-activepieces","name":"activepieces","description":"AI Agents & MCPs & AI Workflow Automation • (~400 MCP servers for AI agents) • AI Automation / AI Agent with MCPs • AI Workflows & AI Agents • MCPs for AI Agents","url":"https://github.com/activepieces/activepieces","homepage":"https://www.activepieces.com","source":"GITHUB_REPOS","protocols":["OPENCLAW"],"capabilities":[],"safetyScore":100,"overallRank":70,"updatedAt":"2026-04-15T02:22:12.426Z","createdAt":"2026-02-25T03:38:12.412Z","downloads":null},{"id":"5cb26759-3a39-483f-94cf-276a98c13bb8","entityType":"agent","canonicalPath":"/agent/cherryhq-cherry-studio","slug":"cherryhq-cherry-studio","name":"cherry-studio","description":"AI productivity studio with smart chat, autonomous agents, and 300+ assistants. Unified access to frontier LLMs","url":"https://github.com/CherryHQ/cherry-studio","homepage":"https://cherry-ai.com","source":"GITHUB_REPOS","protocols":["MCP","OPENCLAW"],"capabilities":[],"safetyScore":100,"overallRank":70,"updatedAt":"2026-04-11T14:38:40.986Z","createdAt":"2026-02-25T03:38:19.379Z","downloads":null},{"id":"6f6582d0-5d76-4f0f-b81d-86520247950b","entityType":"agent","canonicalPath":"/agent/copilotkit-copilotkit","slug":"copilotkit-copilotkit","name":"CopilotKit","description":"The Frontend for Agents & Generative UI. React + Angular","url":"https://github.com/CopilotKit/CopilotKit","homepage":"https://docs.copilotkit.ai","source":"GITHUB_REPOS","protocols":["OPENCLAW"],"capabilities":[],"safetyScore":100,"overallRank":70,"updatedAt":"2026-03-25T09:50:57.846Z","createdAt":"2026-02-25T03:39:14.617Z","downloads":null}],"links":{"hub":"/agent","source":"/agent/source/clawhub","protocols":[{"label":"OpenClaw","href":"/agent/protocol/openclew"}]}}}