Drafting and improving job descriptions, postings, hiring briefs, interview questions, interview guides, interview plans, requisition plans, and recruiting communications

I'm a huge advocate for AI in recruiting 🤖✅. I mean that genuinely, not as a disclaimer before I complain.

15+ years in Talent Acquisition, and AI tools have made me faster and sharper — sourcing, market mapping, drafting outreach, structuring interview loops 📈. Used well, it's one of the best things to happen to this profession in a decade.

So here's a story from the other side of the table 👇

I was recently invited to interview with a well-known organization for a technical talent role. Round one: an AI-led interview. Fine I've built and evaluated tools like this myself, I understand the appeal.

24 hours later, I got a long, well-written rejection email 📧. Detailed. Polished. Confident.
And wrong. ❌

The reasoning cited we need more of "depth in engineering and technical talent strategy." I've recruited technical and engineering talent across nearly my entire career — up through my most recent role. It's not a side skill I picked up. It's a core part of what I've done for 15 years 💻.

I'm not writing this because I'm upset about the rejection. Rejections happen — that's the job, on both sides of the table. What stuck with me is this:

A confident, detailed, well-formatted "no" can still be a wrong "no." 🎯

And when the reasoning is wrong, it doesn't just cost that one candidate a shot. It quietly shapes who a company thinks doesn't fit often the exact people who do.

This isn't an anti-AI take. It's a reminder for anyone building or deploying these tools in hiring:

→ 🔍 AI screening should widen the room a recruiter is looking at, not replace their judgment entirely.
→ ✍️ "Elaborate" and "accurate" are not the same thing. A well-written explanation can still be built on a bad read of a resume.
→ 🤝 If a tool is making pass/fail calls on senior, nuanced backgrounds, a human should still be in the loop before the door closes.

I'll keep using AI. I'll keep recommending it to the TA leaders I talk to. It's too good a tool not to 🙌.

But I'll also keep saying this out loud: efficiency without a human check isn't progress. It's just a faster way to miss people who don't fit neatly into a keyword match.

Curious if others in TA or eng leadership have seen this same gap where the tool sounded certain, but wasn't right 💬👇

#TalentAcquisition #AIinHiring #RecruitingLeadership #CandidateExperience #FutureOfWork

I use AI every day at work and every night "vibe coding" haha. Here's my honest scorecard on what it's actually good at in recruiting:

Genuinely great:
- First-draft job descriptions (I edit, but it kills the blank page)
- Researching a company before a BD call
- Turning a long candidate call into clean notes

Overrated:
- Outreach. AI-written InMails have a smell. Candidates can tell, imo. Everyone's inbox is full of the same "personalized at scale" robot chatter.

Completely irreplaceable:
-The call where a candidate tells you the real reason they're leaving, which is never the reason on their resume.

The recruiters who win the next 5 years won't be the ones who automate the most. They'll be the ones who automate the busywork so they can spend more hours on the phone.

What's AI actually doing for you at work? Not the hype version. The real one.

I use AI in my HR work every single day.

And the more I use it, the more convinced I become of one thing:
AI isn't replacing HR. It's reshaping how we work.

It replaces repetitive tasks.
Not human judgment.

It writes the first draft.
Not the final decision.

It automates processes.
Not relationships.

It saves time.
Not empathy.

Because no AI can replace the moments that truly define great HR.
The candidate who calls late at night, anxious about whether they're making the right career move.

The fresher who needs a few extra minutes because confidence hasn't caught up with capability.

The rejection that deserves a conversation, not an automated email.
AI can make HR faster.

But people are what make HR meaningful.
The future of HR isn't AI vs. Humans.

It's AI empowering humans to be better HR professionals. ❤️

#HumanResources #AI #Recruitment #Hiring #FutureOfWork #PeopleFirst #HRTech #Leadership

🚀 AI Recruiter Playbook | Day 1

Most recruiters use AI to write job descriptions.

I use AI to think like a strategic sourcing partner.

One prompt has saved me hours of manual research.

Prompt:

"Act as a Senior Technical Recruiter. Analyze the following job description and provide:
1. The must-have technical skills.
2. The nice-to-have skills.
3. Similar job titles to search.
4. A LinkedIn Boolean string.
5. A GitHub search strategy.
6. Five screening questions.
7. A personalized candidate outreach message.
8. The biggest hiring challenges for this role."

Instead of starting from scratch, I start with a structured hiring plan.

💡 AI won't replace recruiters.

Recruiters who know how to use AI effectively will have an edge over those who don't.

What's your favorite AI prompt for recruiting?

Comment "PROMPT" and I'll share more AI recruiting prompts in this series.

#AIRecruiterPlaybook #TechnicalRecruiter #TalentAcquisition #Recruitment #Hiring #GitHub #BooleanSearch #GenerativeAI #TechHiring #RecruiterLife

I just got a phone call from an AI recruiter bot.

As someone who uses AI daily, I was shocked!

I love tech. I use AI to help source candidates. I use it to write client screens. I even use it to transcribe virtual calls with candidate approval. (I even created this image with AI).

But talking to a bot on the phone felt wrong. It felt like a data-harvesting scam. It lacked any shred of security. Most of all, it lacked humanity.

Call me old-fashioned, but finding a job requires a human touch.
Hiring is built on trust. You cannot build a relationship with an algorithm. I want real partnerships with my clients, recruiters, and candidates.

Automation should enhance our work, not replace our relationships.
Am I alone here?

Should recruiters use AI? Yes (with caveats).

But all the AI and tooling in the world doesn't change the fundamentals. AI doesn't make a bad process good. It makes it fast. And a bad process at scale is the worst version of hiring there is. Point it at a structured, consistent one, and it helps run that process for every candidate. Not speed. Not cleverness. Consistency.

A few things I believe after building this into a real talent function:

▪️ The recruiter stays at the centre. AI can make you faster and better informed. The human still makes the call and owns the outcome.

▪️ The constraint isn't which model is smartest. It's whether it can see the whole hiring story. Scatter it across email, Slack, and half-filled ATS notes, and your AI only ever reasons about the easy half.

▪️ Hiring is two kinds of work. Predictable work you automate. Judgment work AI assists with, but never decides.

▪️ The resume is an even weaker signal now. Both sides have the same tools. That's not a crisis, it's a forcing function for skills-based hiring. It strips away the lazy proxies and rewards the teams who already knew what "good" looks like and built a process to test for it.

I just hosted the first episode of the Pinpoint How-To Series on exactly this.

I walk through the five areas where this changed how I work: intake and role design, candidate management, recruiting content, reporting and insights, and interview prep.

It's 20 minutes, practical, and I share the three red lines I won't cross. Link in the comments.

Really excited to officially launch AI Sourcer in Elly today!

Last fall, we launched a (very early) beta for the AI Sourcer and over the past few months we rebuilt it from the ground up around one core idea:

Sourcing should feel like continuing the hiring conversation, not rebuilding it from scratch.

Almost every recruiting team still uses LinkedIn, boolean searches, spreadsheets, enrichment tools, and outreach platforms just to run a search. With Elly, you can do it all in one tool:
1. Use Elly as a notetaker on a kickoff call
2. Automatically write a JD, create a hiring plan, and build out scorecards
3. Chat to search across 100M+ US-based candidates
4. Ask Elly ~why~ certain candidates are being surfaced and refine the search as needed
5. Run outbound campaigns on email & LinkedIn
6. Use Elly's ATS to run the rest of your process

Try it out here: https://lnkd.in/eNM3ecMr

Next week, we’re hosting a live “old way vs new way of sourcing” showdown. I’ll be using AI Sourcer while our Head of Search runs a traditional LinkedIn + boolean workflow side-by-side on the same role.

Register at the link in the comments!

The amount I use AI for over the last few months has increased exponentially, yet I still class myself as user rather than truly adopting AI.


Today i've set up a fitness and protein tracker for the week.
I've used it to help with some garden design.
It's helped me write a basic advert for an AI Software role.
It's helped me build a 6 week football coaching plan.
It's been my sound board for a new management role i'm expecting in.
It's even helped me build the layers to make canva look like an old amber CRT.


The one thing it doesnt help with is my content - not because it wouldnt be good at ti - it would definitely get better engagement than the stuff I create... But the people piece is mine - i'm not handing over my writing, my resourcing, my profiling to a machine - when I do that then wheres the achievement?

When a post does well and generates conversation - thats on me!
When I find someone their perfect career - thats my contribution!
When I make a mistake - its mine to learn from!


AI is now my administrator andits better and faster at lots of the basics than I can ever claim to be - a lot of the stuff I just wouldnt have bothered doing before.


The people i'm hunting for though - are the AI Natives - the engineers who have agents writing code and building products, all orchestrated by their skills and experience - the managers who have teams building with AI and are managing both the humans and the controls and security around AI generation - these people still blow my mind!

AI tools are not replacing recruiters. They’re replacing bad recruiters.

I use AI every day in my process.

For:

✔ Initial CV screening patterns
✔ Job description optimisation
✔ Interview question generation
✔ Market salary data synthesis

Not for:

✘ Deciding if a person is right for a team
✘ Reading between the lines of a candidate’s career story
✘ Managing a hiring manager’s expectations
✘ Negotiating an offer that both sides feel good about

The recruiters panicking about AI are the ones whose entire value was in admin.

The recruiters thriving right now are the ones whose value was always in judgment, relationships, and insight.

And if you’re a hiring manager — are you working with a recruiter or a CV forwarding service?

Most recruiters are using AI wrong. Heck, I was using AI wrong in the beginning. They treat it like Google.

“Write me a job description.”
“Summarize this resume.”
“Draft an email.”

That’s not where the value is.
The real shift in thinking is this...
AI is not a tool but it’s a workflow layer.

Here’s what that looks like in practice...

Before AI:
1) Open req
2) Write JD from scratch
3) Manually screen 50 resumes
4) Start sourcing

After AI:
1) AI drafts the JD from intake notes
2) AI summarizes and ranks applicants against non-negotiables on the req
3) AI generates search strings
4) Recruiter focuses on decisions, not typing

Same job. Completely different leverage.

The teams who will be the most efficient won’t be the ones “using AI.”

They’ll be the ones redesigning their workflow around it. This doesn't need to be scary. It's actually super cool.