Ta Ai Maturity Assessment

TA & People Function AI Maturity Assessment

Produces a written maturity assessment across six independent dimensions, names the one or two constraints that are actually holding the function back, and sequences the fix into horizons. The point is not a score. The point is a defensible answer to "what do we do next, and why that first" that survives contact with a CEO who has just read something about AI on a plane.

Most AI maturity work fails in one of two ways: it produces a single number that means nothing, or it produces a list of twenty improvements with no ordering. This skill exists to avoid both.

The core idea: these dimensions move independently

A team can have an excellent stack and no capability to use it. A team can have highly capable individuals sitting inside a process that prevents them adding value. Averaging those into "Level 2.6" destroys the only information that mattered.

Six dimensions, scored separately, never averaged into a headline number:

| # | Dimension | The question it answers | |---|-----------|------------------------| | 1 | Operational maturity | Is the underlying process clean enough for AI to help? | | 2 | Team capability | Can the people actually use these tools? | | 3 | Tooling and technology | What is in the stack, and is it integrated or bolted on? | | 4 | Workflow redesign | Are they doing old steps faster, or doing different steps? | | 5 | Governance and risk | Would this survive a candidate complaint, an audit, or a regulator? | | 6 | Measurement | Can they tell whether any of it worked? |

Two structural relationships matter more than any individual score, and the report must make them explicit:

• Operational maturity gates everything. AI applied to a broken process produces

faster broken output — more candidates screened against an unclear bar, more interview notes summarising unstructured interviews. Where operational maturity is Level 1–2, cap the realised value of tooling and workflow redesign at operational + 1, and say so. The raw score can still be high; the effective score is not.

• Governance is a gate, not an average. A function at Level 4 on tooling and Level 1

on governance is not "mid-maturity". It is carrying a risk position it has not priced. Never let a strong tooling score wash out a weak governance score.

Read references/maturity-model.md before scoring. It carries the full five-level anchors for each dimension, the diagnostic questions, and the evidence to ask for.

What you need to start

One thing: a conversation with someone who knows how the function actually works. Ideally the Head of TA, CPO, or a TA Ops lead.

Nothing else is required. If the user offers artefacts — an ATS stage report, a tool inventory, a vendor invoice list, a recruiter headcount, last quarter's hiring metrics — take them, they sharpen the scoring considerably. If they have none, run entirely on the conversation and say in the report that scores are self-reported and unverified.

Never stall waiting for data. If the user goes quiet on a dimension, has to drop off the call, or answers three of six themes, score what is covered, mark the rest Not assessed rather than guessing, and produce the full report anyway. A report covering four dimensions honestly is worth more than a stalled conversation. Say at the end which two unanswered questions would most change the picture.

Process

1. Frame it, in two sentences

Open by saying what this will produce and how long it takes: six themed batches of questions, roughly 20–30 minutes conversationally, ending in a written report with a roadmap. Ask one calibrating question before starting:

> Is this for your own planning, or does it need to go to someone — a CEO, a board, a > budget conversation?

The answer changes the register of the report, not the assessment. A board-bound report leads harder on risk and spend; a planning report leads on sequencing.

2. Run the assessment in six themed batches

One batch per dimension. Two to four questions per batch, never more. Twelve questions in one message gets one-line answers to three of them.

Where the environment supports structured multiple-choice questions (Cowork's AskUserQuestion or equivalent), prefer it for anything with a small set of sensible answers — "which of these describes your scorecard situation" is far faster to answer than free text, and it produces cleaner scoring. Keep free text for the questions where the texture is the point: what broke, what got abandoned, what the team actually does.

Order the batches: Operational → Team capability → Tooling → Workflow redesign → Governance → Measurement. Operational first because it sets the ceiling for the rest and because it is the least threatening place to start. Governance late, because by then you know what they are automating and can ask about the right risks rather than reciting a compliance list.

Adapt the order if the user leads somewhere. Someone who opens with "we bought three tools and nobody uses them" has just handed you the tooling and capability batches — take them in that order and backfill operational afterwards.

After each batch, reflect back in one or two lines what you now believe, and where you are provisionally scoring them. This is what stops an assessment feeling like an interrogation, and it lets the user correct you before the error compounds.

> So: stages are defined and everyone uses them, but scorecards exist for engineering and > nowhere else, and half of them get filled in after the debrief. That is a Level 3 on > operational maturity with a real soft spot in evidence capture. Fair?

3. Push past the first answer on two specific questions

Two places where the first answer is almost always wrong, and where pushing is the whole value of doing this with a human rather than a form:

Capability. "The team is using AI" almost always means some recruiters paste job adverts into a chat assistant and rewrite them. That is Level 2 tool familiarity, not adoption. Ask for a specific example: walk me through the last time someone on your team changed how they did a task because of a tool — not did it faster, did it differently. If nobody can name one, capability is Level 2 regardless of how many licences exist.

Workflow redesign. "We've automated screening" usually means the same screen, done by a machine, at the same point in the process. Redesign means the process shape changed: stages collapsed, a step removed because it no longer earns its place, work moved earlier or later because the constraint moved. Ask: what step have you deleted? Deletion is the tell. Almost nobody has an answer, and that is fine — say so plainly, because it is the honest finding and it is where the value is.

4. Score each dimension

Score 1–5 against the anchors in references/maturity-model.md. The anchors describe observable behaviour; score against what the user described, not what they aspire to.

Rules that keep scores meaningful:

• Score conservatively at the boundary. If the evidence supports 3 or 4, score 3 and

say what would move it to 4. A generous score removes the reason to act.

• **A dimension is only as strong as its weakest sub-element if that element is

load-bearing.** Great data hygiene with no defined stages is not Level 4 operational.

• Distinguish raw from effective where the gate applies. Present both: "Tooling: 4

(effective 3 — see operational constraint)".

• Mark unassessed dimensions as "Not assessed", never as a guess or a zero. A guessed

score is the one thing that will get the whole report dismissed.

5. Identify the binding constraint

This is the part that makes the report worth reading. "Improve everything" is useless advice. Name the one or two things that, if fixed, unblock the most, and show the reasoning.

Diagnostic patterns, in priority order:

1. Operational floor. Operational ≤ 2 while any other dimension ≥ 3 → operations is

binding. They are building on sand and further tooling spend compounds the mess.

1. Governance exposure. Governance ≤ 2 while anything automated touches a selection

decision (screening, ranking, scoring, rejection) → governance is binding regardless of every other score. This is the one case where the constraint is about downside, not upside, and it should be stated in those terms.

1. Shelfware gap. Tooling exceeds capability by two or more levels → capability is

binding. They are paying for capacity they cannot use; more tools makes it worse. Ask what is being paid for and unused, by name, and put it in the report.

1. Measurement blindness. Measurement ≤ 2 while everything else ≥ 3 → measurement is

binding. Not because measurement creates value, but because without it the programme cannot be defended and will lose its budget in the next cycle. Say that explicitly to a CPO; it is the argument that lands.

1. Redesign ceiling. Everything ≥ 3 and workflow redesign ≤ 2 → redesign is binding.

This is the good problem: the foundations hold and the value is unclaimed.

Where two constraints tie, prefer the one that is cheaper to fix — early momentum buys permission for the expensive one.

State the constraint as a claim with reasoning attached, not a label. The figures in the example below are placeholders — use the ones the function gave you:

> The binding constraint is scorecard discipline, not tooling. You have interview > intelligence running on [60]% of interviews, but it summarises unstructured conversations > against no agreed bar, so the output is a transcript with better formatting. Fixing > scorecards costs you a design session and two months of enforcement, and it converts a > tool you already pay for from decorative to decisive.

6. Build the sequenced roadmap

Three horizons. Every item tagged with its dimension, effort, and impact.

• Next 30 days — things that need no budget, no procurement, and no one else's

permission. Usually operational hygiene, a governance stocktake, a baseline measurement, killing an unused licence. Three to five items, maximum.

• Next quarter — things needing a decision, a small spend, or a change to how the team

works. Four to six items.

• Next two to three quarters — structural: redesign, integration, a role, a policy

that needs legal sign-off. Three to five items.

Effort as Low / Medium / High with a one-line reason (people, money, or political capital). Impact tied to the constraint: an item that does not relieve the binding constraint or a real risk should be justified or cut. Sequence so that dependencies are visible — if the quarter-two item requires the 30-day item to have landed, say so.

Be ruthless about volume. Fifteen well-argued items get done; forty get filed.

7. Write the section on where AI does not help

Include it. A report claiming everything can be AI-enabled reads as vendor material to a senior audience and costs you the credibility of everything else in the document.

Name the parts of hiring that remain stubbornly human, with the reason each resists:

• Closing a senior candidate. The decision turns on trust, judgement about the people

they would work with, and a read on whether the story is real. It is a relationship transaction; a well-written email does not move it.

• Calibrating a hiring manager's expectations. The work is changing someone's mind

about what they can get for the money in this market. That requires a person willing to disagree with them, with the standing to do it. Evidence helps; it does not substitute.

• Judgement on borderline candidates. The genuinely ambiguous case is exactly where

models are least reliable and where the cost of a confident wrong answer is highest. Structure the decision, do not automate it.

• Reading the room in a hiring debrief. Where the real disagreement is, who has gone

quiet, whose objection is actually about something else.

• Anything the organisation must be able to explain and stand behind. A rejection a

candidate challenges. A decision a regulator asks about. Accountability does not delegate.

Adapt to what the user described rather than pasting the list. If they told you their recruiters spend most of their week on scheduling, the point about closing is worth less to them than a point about where scheduling automation stops.

8. Produce the report

Fill assets/report-template.md and write it to disk as a Markdown file. Do not deliver the assessment as a wall of chat — this gets forwarded.

Then offer one upgrade path, chosen for the audience they named in step 1: a slide deck if it is going to a board or exec team, a Word document if it is going to HR ops or legal, a shareable page if the team will refer back to it. Offer; do not build all three.

Handoffs. Where the roadmap says "evaluate or buy something", that is hr-tech-evaluation. Where operational maturity came back low specifically on interview structure, scorecards or debriefs, that is interview-process-audit. Where the gap is that hiring managers never define the bar in the first place, that is hiring-manager-intake.

The rapid version

If the user is between meetings or on a live call with limited time, offer a six-question pass — one diagnostic question per dimension, taken from the "fastest single question" line in each dimension of references/maturity-model.md. It produces a directional score with lower confidence. Label it clearly as a rapid assessment in the report and say what a full pass would change. This is better than deferring, because the deferred version does not happen.

Scoring honestly

Two failure modes to design against, both of which destroy the report's usefulness:

Inflation to be pleasant. The user is describing their own function and will be invested in it sounding capable. Score what was described. Where you score lower than they expect, show the anchor text and let the model do the arguing.

Deflation to justify a programme. Equally corrosive. If the function is genuinely at Level 4 on tooling, say so, and put the effort somewhere it is needed.

If the honest answer is "you are at Level 2 across the board and the industry conversation is ahead of almost everyone's reality", say that. It is usually true, it is a relief to hear, and it makes the roadmap credible.

Facts you must not invent

No adoption percentages, no benchmark scores, no "most TA teams are at Level 2", no vendor capability claims, no named case studies. This report goes in front of boards.

Where current external facts matter — regulation above all — search at runtime and cite what you find with its date, rather than asserting from memory. The regulatory picture for employment-related AI is moving quarterly and anything stated from memory will be stale or subtly wrong. references/governance-and-risk.md lists specifically what to verify.

Where a number would help the argument, make it the user's own: ask for their time to hire, their recruiter req load, their tool spend. Their own baseline is more persuasive to their board than any external benchmark, and it is defensible.

Legal and ethical guardrails

This is analysis, not compliance sign-off. The assessment surfaces where the function carries risk and frames the questions for a qualified adviser. It does not certify compliance with the EU AI Act, NYC Local Law 144, or any other instrument, and the report says so.

Adverse impact. The skill may flag where automated screening, ranking or scoring could disadvantage a group, and recommend structural fixes — validating the tool, monitoring outcomes by stage, keeping a human decision-maker on rejections. It does not compute a legal adverse-impact finding, and it never recommends a selection approach that uses a protected characteristic.

Jurisdiction. Ask early which jurisdictions they hire in — t

…

Source & license

This open-source skill is cataloged on AgentStack and links to its original source — we do not rehost the code.

• Author: we-are-move
• Source: we-are-move/claude-skills-for-ta-and-people-teams
• License: MIT

Install and usage instructions live in the source repository linked above.