--- title: "Recruiting intake meeting template: from requirements to a usable brief" canonical: https://metix.ai/blog/hiring-brief-template published: 2026-10-17 updated: 2026-10-17 author: "Metix AI" --- # Recruiting intake meeting template: from requirements to a usable brief Canonical: https://metix.ai/blog/hiring-brief-template A useful intake ends with decisions someone can act on. Copy the blank form, inspect the filled example and agree on what evidence would justify contacting a candidate for your real opening. Metix AI editorial team The short version Use the meeting to approve the role, separate essential evidence from preferences and assign owners to unknowns. Keep the blank brief and fictional example beside each other. Resolve launch blockers before creating the actual role, then review candidate evidence and approve outreach. Decision guide ## Is this role ready to start? 1. ### Approve the opening Confirm headcount, budget, hiring locations and a review owner. 2. ### Set the evidence bar Write must-haves, acceptable alternatives and questions for missing evidence. 3. ### Activate and review Create the real role, check its structured brief and approve outreach after evidence review. The filled example is fictional. A completed form or signup does not prove activation or a hiring outcome. For founders, hiring managers and small recruiting teams with an approved opening. The template is Metix editorial work; the filled example is fictional. Product scope checked October 17, 2026. ## Leave the intake meeting with a usable brief A recruiting intake meeting should settle what the person must do, what evidence would show they can do it, and who can resolve the unknowns. Use the [blank form](https://metix.ai/blog/hiring-brief-template#template) during the meeting, then compare it with the [filled example](https://metix.ai/blog/hiring-brief-template#example). Leave with a brief both people can use. A job description explains the opening to candidates. The intake brief records the decisions behind the search: approved constraints, essential evidence, reasonable alternatives, review responsibilities and what must be confirmed before outreach. It can feed a manual search or an AI recruiting workflow. You do not need Metix to use the form. Bring the approved budget, scope and interview availability. If the opening is tentative, resolve approval first. Do not publish a fictional or unapproved role to try the workflow. **A suggested 30-minute working session, not a required product setup time** | Time | Decision to leave with | Prompt if the answer is vague | | - | - | - | | 0-5 minutes | Business problem, approved opening and first deliverable | What work is waiting today, and what should this person have delivered after 90 days? | | 5-15 minutes | Essential evidence, equivalent experience and preferences | What would demonstrate this skill? Could someone show it with a different title, tool or employer? | | 15-22 minutes | Pay, location, work hours and unresolved constraints | Which condition is truly essential, and who can change it? | | 22-30 minutes | Calibration examples, reviewer and launch blockers | Would we both review these examples the same way? Who answers the open question, by when? | Ask why each new requirement matters. A preference belongs in the ranking, not in the rejection rule. Some tools are trainable; others are essential. Write down why this role needs each one. ## Copy the recruiting intake form [Download the editable blank brief (Markdown)](https://metix.ai/assets/resources/hiring-brief-template.md). You can also select and copy the complete block below into your document editor. Replace the brackets, assign owners to unknowns, and keep a version date. This is a portable document, not a promised one-click Metix import. ``` # Recruiting intake form / hiring brief Status: DRAFT. Replace every bracket; leave unknowns explicit. Do not launch until blocking items have an owner and are resolved. ## 1. Real opening and approval Role / requisition ID: [ ] Hiring manager / budget approver / recruiter: [ ] Headcount and budget approved by / date: [ ] Business problem this hire will own: [ ] 90-day deliverable and how you will check it: [ ] Target start / hiring priority / next review date: [ ] ## 2. Constraints candidates need to know Employment type / approved hiring locations: [ ] Work model / required overlap using a named time zone: [ ] Approved compensation range / currency / base versus variable or equity: [ ] Travel / job-related license or other essential condition: [ ] Work-authorization and sponsorship policy confirmed by: [ ] Which constraints can change, and who can approve the change: [ ] ## 3. Evidence-based requirements Must-have A: [job outcome requiring it] Acceptable evidence or equivalent experience: [ ] If evidence is missing, ask: [ ] Must-have B / evidence / missing-evidence question: [ ] Must-have C / evidence / missing-evidence question: [ ] Preferences that can be learned or traded off: [ ] Do not use as substitutes for evidence: [prestige, title or other unapproved proxies] Confirmed job-related exclusions / reason / reviewer: [ ] ## 4. Calibration before outreach Strong-fit example: [evidence meets requirements; unresolved checks] Borderline example: [specific gap; question that could resolve it] Unsuitable example: [confirmed conflict with an essential condition] Missing detail means UNKNOWN, not automatically pass or reject. Use permitted, minimal information; do not paste confidential personal data. ## 5. Candidate proposition and approved outreach Why this role exists now / what the person can own: [ ] Accurate work, pay and flexibility statements allowed in outreach: [ ] Who approves each outreach message: [ ] Who owns replies / opt-outs / unanswered candidate questions: [ ] ## 6. Review, interviews and launch Profile-evidence reviewer / response deadline: [ ] Interview stages / owner / job-related evidence assessed: [ ] Interview availability / scheduling contact: [ ] Open questions / blocking or nonblocking / owner / due date: [ ] Manager approves brief version / date: [ ] Role created in chosen product / ID: [ ] Structured brief checked against this version: [ ] First candidate evidence reviewed / unresolved issues: [ ] Outreach approved before sending: [ ] Next calibration date / change log: [ ] ## Feedback log Candidate alias | requirement | observed evidence | unknown | decision + reason | brief revision + approver [ ] | [ ] | [ ] | [ ] | review / verify / decline | [ ] Activation record: confirm the real role and its Agent are created in the account. A template download, signup or saved draft is not activation. Record qualified interest, booked and attended interviews separately; hiring decisions stay with the employer. ``` The must-have slots are prompts. Leave unused slots empty rather than inventing requirements to fill the form. Keep only conditions that matter to doing this job. Name acceptable evidence for each essential skill. Add a question for missing profile details. Use job-related requirements; do not infer personal characteristics or work eligibility from a name, photo or location. Record only the candidate information needed for the role. Use aliases in shared feedback. Follow company policy and use candidate-permitted examples. Do not require access to private code or confidential work to prove experience. ## Filled hiring brief: backend engineer [Download the filled example (Markdown)](https://metix.ai/assets/resources/hiring-brief-filled-example.md). This example shows two launch blockers and the explicit decisions that close them. A complete-looking form still needs approval before anyone contacts candidates. ### Filled hiring brief: backend engineer SYNTHETIC EXAMPLE. The company, budget, role, people and candidate evidence below are invented to illustrate completion. This is not a customer case, live vacancy, salary benchmark or hiring result. #### 1. Real opening and approval Role / req: Backend engineer / BE-01. Hiring manager: engineering lead. Recruiter: founder. Budget approver: founder. Example approval: one permanent opening, approved for this fictional exercise. Business problem: the integration team needs reliable customer-facing APIs; the engineering lead currently owns every production escalation. 90-day deliverable: ship one customer API integration with automated tests, failure monitoring and an agreed incident runbook. Engineering lead reviews delivery and a walkthrough. Target start: within eight weeks of launch; this is a planning target, not a promised fill time. Review after the first five profiles. #### 2. Constraints candidates need to know Employment: permanent full time; remote within US locations the company is approved to hire in. Version v1: approved state list was a BLOCKER. In the completed v2 scenario, the founder confirms California, New York and Massachusetts as the fictional company's approved states. For your real role, verify your own list before launch. Work hours: four working hours overlapping 09:00-13:00 America/New\_York, with daylight-saving changes following that zone. Confirm with candidates; never infer availability from address. Compensation: fictional approved base budget USD140,000-175,000/year; equity separate, range not yet approved. Do not advertise unapproved equity. Version v1: sponsorship policy was a BLOCKER. In completed v2, the founder confirms this fictional opening cannot provide new sponsorship. Verify eligibility directly through your company's process; never infer it from identity or residence. Travel and licenses: no essential requirement in this exercise. Flexibility: engineering lead can trade language preference; founder alone approves budget/location changes. #### 3. Evidence-based requirements A. Delivered a backend API used in production. Acceptable evidence: resume/project description plus a discussion of ownership, tests and failure handling; private-work examples can be described without sharing code. Missing: ask what they owned and how it operated after launch. B. Operated a relational database in production. Acceptable evidence: PostgreSQL or equivalent transactional database work and a concrete query, migration or reliability example. Missing: ask for their own contribution and tradeoffs. A tool name on a profile is not enough. C. Can work the agreed overlap and within an approved hiring location. Confirm directly; an absent location or schedule is UNKNOWN. Preferences: Python, early-stage product work, customer integrations. Java/Go and another relational database can be equivalent. Degree, employer brand and exact title are not gates. Exclusions: a confirmed inability to meet essential overlap after discussing feasible options; confirmed work limited to analytics dashboards with no production API responsibility. A thin profile is not an exclusion. #### 4. Calibration A / proceed to verification: supplied resume describes shipping a Java API and owning MySQL incident follow-up. Skill evidence fits A/B through equivalent experience. Location, hours and interest still unknown; ask before treating as fully qualified. B / clarify: supplied resume lists Python and PostgreSQL, but examples are reporting dashboards. Ask for one production API they owned; keep pending rather than infer no experience. C / decline for this role: the person confirms only asynchronous work and no required overlap, after discussion of alternatives. Record the specific job constraint. Do not expand that decision into a judgment about general ability. These are fictional evidence situations, not real people or automated hiring decisions. #### 5. Candidate proposition and outreach The role owns an integration from requirements through operating it in production, with direct access to the engineering lead. Approved claims: scope above, remote within approved locations, base range above. No guaranteed promotion, equity amount or customer-growth claim. Founder approves each message; recruiter owns replies/opt-outs and takes unresolved technical questions to the engineering lead. In v1, no outreach while the location/sponsorship blockers remain. In v2, those decisions are recorded before approval. Draft outreach for this fictional example, requiring review before real use: "Your production API and database work looks relevant to our backend opening. The role owns a customer integration through launch and operation. We are remote within our approved US states, with four working hours overlapping 09:00-13:00 America/New\_York. Base budget is USD140,000-175,000. Would you be open to discussing the scope?" Add a genuine candidate-specific reason supported by evidence; do not claim interest or availability in advance. #### 6. Review and activation Engineering lead reviews the first five profiles within two business days. Founder supplies interview availability before approved outreach starts: the fictional team reserves Tuesday/Thursday 10:00-12:00 America/New\_York; confirm actual dates with each participant. Interview plan: founder role/constraints conversation; engineering lead production-API walkthrough; practical discussion of database changes using candidate-permitted examples. Verify job evidence consistently. v1 decision log: founder owned the state/sponsorship blockers; status DRAFT. v2 decision log: founder confirms the example states and sponsorship policy above; engineering lead approves requirements A/B/C and the interview plan. Optional equity remains unapproved and is omitted from outreach. Status: READY TO CREATE THE ROLE in this fictional exercise, not a record of a real activation. Then create the real role in Metix, check its structured brief against the approved version, review candidate evidence and approve outreach. Record the actual role/Agent ID and review date in the account. Do not paste this fictional job as a real vacancy. #### Feedback example B | production API ownership | reporting dashboards described | API delivery unknown | verify with one concrete ownership question | no new exclusion yet A | equivalent language | Java API with incident follow-up | role constraints and interest unknown | continue review | keep Python as a preference Review success: did both reviewers use the same evidence bar, was an actual approved role activated, and could the team handle the resulting conversations? Track replies, booked interviews, attended interviews and hiring decisions as different stages. No outcome is assumed here. ## Calibrate evidence before contacting anyone Walk through the example with the person who will approve the shortlist. Agree on the review decisions before you start a larger search. A strong profile on paper can still have an unverified location, schedule or interest. Keep those questions open until you have evidence. **Three fictional cases; these are review steps, not automated hiring decisions** | Observed situation | Useful action | Feedback that changes the next review | | - | - | - | | A shipped Java API and operated MySQL | Review as equivalent experience; verify role constraints and interest | Keep Python as a preference; inspect ownership and production evidence | | B lists Python/PostgreSQL but only shows reporting dashboards | Ask for one production API ownership example | Mark API evidence unknown. Do not add a blanket analytics-background exclusion | | C confirms the essential working overlap is impossible | Discuss feasible alternatives; decline for this role if the conflict remains | Record the exact agreed constraint and confirmation, not a vague culture-fit judgment | If a manager says a person is "too junior," ask which responsibility lacks evidence. If they say "wrong background," ask whether the gap is essential experience, an unanswered question or a preference. Make a specific change only when the manager approves it, and record the version. Recheck the earlier sample against that version so yesterday's candidate and today's candidate are judged by the same bar. Do not tighten the brief around whichever famous employers happened to appear in the first search. Pick a manageable review batch. The example uses the first five profiles and a two-business-day response target; those are suggested working agreements, not Metix product limits or performance guarantees. ## Create one real role from the approved brief Use the form in whichever recruiting system you choose. If you want to run every query and sequence yourself, the [AI sourcing tools comparison](https://metix.ai/blog/best-ai-recruiting-platforms-for-startup-teams) helps select that workflow. Keep the ATS decision separate. Metix fits when you can define and approve the bar, review evidence and run interviews, but want sourcing through screening and booking carried through the Agent workflow. Its [published AI recruiter workflow](https://metix.ai/features/ai-recruiter) turns role notes into a structured brief and grades candidate fit with evidence. Its published description separates must-have gates from preferences and states uncertainty when evidence is missing. Treat that as scope to verify in your own role, not a promise that every profile is accurate. 1. Resolve the blocking budget, hiring-location, work-model and approval questions. Have the manager approve the brief version. 2. Create the actual opening in Metix using your approved role information. Check the structured brief against the document, especially must-haves versus preferences. The downloadable form is preparation; it does not itself create a role. 3. Review the first candidate evidence against the same bar. Keep missing information marked unknown and resolve it before calling someone fully qualified. Check that the actual role and its Agent are created in the account. 4. Review and approve outreach before it sends. Keep someone available to answer role questions, conduct interviews and make the hiring decision. The [14-day trial](https://metix.ai/pricing) includes one-time 1 AI Agent and 500 Credits without a card. Self-serve means your team reviews the brief and outreach; it does not include a Metix staff member reviewing the shortlist. If you need staff to run the role from day one, [Delivery is separately quoted](https://book.metix.ai/?campaign=hiring-brief-template&source=site&cta=delivery). Record the role/Agent ID and activation date. Then measure candidate evidence, qualified interest and interviews. A downloaded form, registration, saved draft or booked calendar slot alone does not prove a hiring result. Interviews held, hiring decisions and paid use are later outcomes. ## Sources and limits We read [Workable's hiring manager intake questions](https://resources.workable.com/hiring-manager-intake-meeting-questions) and [LinkedIn's intake meeting checklist](https://www.linkedin.com/business/talent/blog/talent-strategy/checklist-to-improve-intake-meetings) in full on October 17, 2026. They describe role discovery, essential versus preferred requirements, interviewer responsibilities and follow-up. Metix designed the form, example and activation checks. The example is a teaching aid, not a salary recommendation, actual vacancy, product test or customer outcome. Confirm your own pay, employment conditions and internal policies. Metix capabilities and trial terms were checked against the current [product page](https://metix.ai/features/ai-recruiter) and [pricing page](https://metix.ai/pricing); this guide does not promise an API, document importer or unverified integration. ### What should a recruiting intake meeting cover? Agree on the real opening, business outcome, approved pay and work constraints, essential evidence, acceptable alternatives and review responsibilities. Assign an owner and due date to unknowns. Leave with an approved hiring brief or a clear list of blockers, rather than an unranked wish list. ### Can I download the recruiting intake form and filled example? Yes. Both Markdown documents are available without signup and appear in full on this page. Replace the blank form with your own role details. The backend-engineer example is fictional and shows evidence calibration plus explicit blocker resolution; it is not a real vacancy or salary benchmark. ### How should I handle a missing must-have on a profile? Separate missing evidence from a confirmed conflict. Mark the detail unknown, ask a job-related question and accept reasonable equivalent evidence. A strong overall profile does not verify an essential requirement, but a thin profile does not prove the person lacks the skill. ### Does this template automatically create a Metix role? No. It is a portable preparation document. Create your actual approved role in Metix, check its structured brief, review candidate evidence and approve outreach before sending. A download, signup or saved draft alone is not proof of an active hiring workflow. ### Who reviews candidates on Metix self-serve? Your team sets the bar, reviews evidence and approves outreach. Metix runs the Agent workflow through sourcing, screening for interest and booking; the employer interviews and decides. Metix staff do not review self-serve shortlists. Staff-run Delivery is a separate quoted service. About the editorial team ## [Metix AI editorial team](https://metix.ai/about) Research & buying guides The Metix AI editorial team writes hiring guides and product comparisons. We publish source dates, distinguish vendor claims from observations, and keep worked examples separate from measured outcomes. Metix AI also sells recruiting software. [About Metix AI ↗](https://metix.ai/about) ## Next step See plans, Credit rules, and trial terms on the [Metix AI pricing page](https://metix.ai/pricing). A 14-day trial includes a one-time 1 AI Agent and 500 Credits, with no card required.