How to give feedback to recruiters on candidates: timing, template and wording
On this page
- What a recruiter does with your feedback
- Turnaround: agree it at intake, then keep it
- The feedback templates
- Vague to specific: a rewrite table
- Read your rejections for a pattern
- Recalibrating the brief
- Agency recruiters and in-house recruiters
- What to leave out of feedback
- A checklist for every piece of feedback
- Questions people ask
To give feedback to recruiters on candidates, send it within the time you agreed at intake, make a clear decision (yes, no, or a named question to resolve), and give the reason in terms of the must-haves: what the candidate showed or did not show, with one example. Then say what, if anything, the recruiter should look for differently next time. That is four lines, and it is enough.
This page covers turnaround times by stage, a template for resume feedback and for interview feedback, a table of vague comments rewritten, how to spot when the problem is the brief rather than the candidates, and the differences between working with an agency and an in-house recruiter.
What a recruiter does with your feedback
Feedback feels like a courtesy. For the recruiter it is working material, used in at least three places within a day of receiving it:
- The candidate. The recruiter calls them with the outcome and the reason. Candidates in other processes decide whether to wait for you based on what they hear, and how fast.
- The search. Every "no, because" changes who the recruiter screens next. Every bare "no" leaves them guessing, and guessing usually means sending more of the same.
- The rest of the slate. A yes on one candidate tells the recruiter which of the others to prioritize and which to release so they stop waiting.
So the test for any piece of feedback is simple: could the recruiter act on it without calling you back? If they would have to ask "what do you mean by that?", it is not finished.
Turnaround: agree it at intake, then keep it
Slow feedback costs you candidates, not the recruiter: the good ones are the ones with other options. Settle the times in the intake meeting (the intake meeting questions include this), write them into the intake summary, and put recurring blocks in your calendar to meet them.
These are reasonable targets to start from. Adjust them to your market; they are not benchmarks.
| Stage | Suggested turnaround | What the recruiter needs |
|---|---|---|
| Resume or submittal review | 1 business day | Interview / no / question, plus a one-line reason |
| After a phone or first interview | Same or next business day | Decision, reasons by must-have, what to probe next |
| After a final round | Within 1 business day of the last interview | Decision or the date of the decision, and whether to hold the runner-up |
| Offer stage | Hours, not days | Approval status, flexibility on terms, start date limits |
| Pattern feedback on the search | Weekly, while the role is open | What is working, what keeps missing, any change to the brief |
If you cannot make a time, send a holding note with a date: "Reviewed two of the four, will finish the others by Thursday noon." The recruiter can work with a late answer that has a date. They cannot work with silence.
The usual reason interview feedback slips is that the notes need writing up first. Score from your notes within the hour, as described in the first-time hiring manager interview guide, and the feedback is mostly a copy of the scorecard.
The feedback templates
Resume or submittal feedback
Short enough to send from your phone. Copy it into a note and reuse it for every candidate.
[Candidate name] - [Role]
Decision: [Interview / No / Question first]
Reason: [must-have met or missed] - [what in the resume or submittal shows it]
If question first: [the one thing you need to know before deciding]
For the search: [anything to look for more or less of, or "no change"]After an interview
[Candidate name] - [Role] - [Interview stage], [date]
Decision: [Advance / No / Need more evidence on X]
Must-haves
- [Must-have 1]: [met / not met / not assessed] - [one example of what they said or did]
- [Must-have 2]: [met / not met / not assessed] - [example]
Strongest evidence: [one or two lines]
Main concern: [one or two lines, job-related]
For the next interviewer, or to probe: [question]
What the candidate asked or seemed unsure about: [questions, concerns, timing]
OK to share with the candidate: [the reason in one sentence you are happy to have relayed]
Internal only: [anything that should not be relayed, and why]
For the search: [no change / look for more X / less weight on Y]The "OK to share" line saves the recruiter from translating your internal notes into something they can say out loud, and it means the candidate hears your words rather than a paraphrase of them.
A filled example
An invented candidate for an invented role, feedback after a first interview:
Jordan Ellis - Customer Support Team Lead - first interview, Tuesday
Decision: Advance to the final round.
Must-haves
- Leading a support team: met. Leads five agents on a chat queue now; described moving the team from one shared queue to tiers after first-response times slipped.
- Handling escalations: met. Walked through a refund dispute step by step, including what she would do differently.
Main concern: no phone support experience; our queue is 40% phone. She said so directly.
To probe in the final: how she would coach an agent on a difficult phone call she cannot hear live.
Candidate asked: whether weekend cover rotates. I said yes, one weekend in four. She seemed fine with it but please confirm.
OK to share: "Strong examples of leading a team through a change; the final round will focus on phone support."
For the search: no change.
The 40% in that example is part of the invented scenario, not a figure about support teams generally. For more wording examples by competency, see internal interview feedback examples.
Vague to specific: a rewrite table
Most unhelpful feedback is not wrong. It is a conclusion with the reason left out. Each rewrite below adds the evidence and the part of the brief it relates to.
| You wrote | The recruiter cannot tell | Rewrite |
|---|---|---|
| "Not a fit." | Which requirement, or whether it is fixable | "No: has supported managers but never managed anyone, and people management is a must-have." |
| "Not senior enough." | What senior means for this role | "No: largest budget owned was $50k; this role owns $2M and the vendor contracts behind it." |
| "Too junior, maybe too senior next time." | Where the level actually is | "Aim one level below this candidate: we need someone who runs the process, not someone who designs the function." |
| "Weak communication." | What happened in the interview | "Could not explain the reconciliation process step by step when asked twice. Written reporting is 30% of the job." |
| "Didn't love them." | Anything | Find the competency. If you cannot, say "no job-related concern" and score from the evidence. |
| "Great, but let's see more." | Whether to schedule, hold or release | "Yes to a final round. I would like two more candidates at this level before we decide, by the 20th." |
| "Overqualified." | The real concern | "Concern: every recent role was strategy only, and this one is 70% hands-on. Please ask whether they want that." |
| "Resume was messy." | Whether it matters for the job | "The resume doesn't show the ERP work you mentioned. Can you confirm which systems before I decide?" |
The numbers in the rewrites are invented examples. The pattern is what matters: a decision, the requirement, and what the candidate showed. "Overqualified" deserves its own caution, because it can stand in for age; the job-related concern underneath it is almost always something you can ask the candidate about directly.
Read your rejections for a pattern
One rejection is about a candidate. Five rejections for the same reason are about the search, and usually about the brief. Once a week while the role is open, look back at your recent "no" reasons and sort them:
SEARCH REVIEW: [Role] Week of [date]
Resumes reviewed: [n] Interviews: [n] Advanced: [n]
Rejection reasons, grouped
- [Must-have or reason]: [count] candidates
- [Must-have or reason]: [count]
- Other: [count]
Is one reason most of the rejections? [yes / no]
If yes, which is true?
[ ] The recruiter is not screening for it (clarify how to test it)
[ ] The market does not have it at this pay, level or location
[ ] It is not really a must-have (move it to nice-to-have, for everyone)
[ ] The job description does not mention it (fix the posting)
Change agreed: [what] - applies from [date] - to all candidates: yesThe check boxes are the point. Each points to a different fix, and only one of them is the recruiter's to make. Two of them are yours.
Recalibrating the brief
Recalibration is a short call where you and the recruiter compare the brief with what the search has turned up. Call one when a single reason keeps appearing in your rejections, when you have advanced nobody after a reasonable slate, or when you notice yourself liking candidates who miss a must-have.
A 20-minute recalibration agenda
- The numbers (2 minutes). How many reviewed, interviewed, advanced, and the grouped rejection reasons.
- What the recruiter is hearing (5 minutes). Let them go first. Candidates declining on pay, on the office days, on the title, on the reputation of the team: this is information you do not get anywhere else.
- Side-by-side (5 minutes). Pick the best candidate you rejected and the best you advanced. What exactly separates them? If you cannot name it, the brief is not clear enough for anyone else to screen against.
- Decide changes (5 minutes). Must-haves, level, pay range, location, where to search. Write each change down with the reason.
- Apply them to everyone (3 minutes). Anyone already declined on a criterion that has now changed gets reconsidered. Agree who reviews the list and by when.
That last step is not only fairness. In three studies, Uhlmann and Cohen (2005) found that people redefined the criteria for a job to match the credentials of the applicant they favored, and that committing to criteria first removed the effect. The guide to reducing bias in interviews covers what else that implies. A change made openly, for every candidate, with a written reason, is the opposite of that. A quiet exception for one person is exactly that.
The change note
BRIEF CHANGE: [Role] Date: [ ] Agreed by: [HM], [recruiter]
Was: [requirement as written at intake]
Now: [new requirement]
Reason: [what the search showed]
Reconsider: [candidates declined on the old requirement] - owner [ ], by [date]
Update the job posting: [yes / no]Agency recruiters and in-house recruiters
Most of this applies to both. The differences are in what happens to your words next.
| Agency recruiter | In-house recruiter | |
|---|---|---|
| Where feedback goes | Email or a call; they log it in their own system | Usually the ATS scorecard, plus a message |
| Who hears it | The candidate, almost always in some form, and the agency's team | The candidate in summary; other interviewers may see the scorecard |
| Why speed matters | Candidates are often represented to other clients at the same time | Candidates are in other processes, and the recruiter carries several of your roles |
| Pattern feedback | Crucial if you use several agencies; each sees only its own candidates | Easier to see across the slate, still worth a weekly look |
| Feedback on the recruiter's work | Say what made a submittal useful or not | Part of the regular check-in |
With agencies, tell them what made a submittal worth reading. "The note on why she wants to move was what got her the interview" teaches more than a general "send better candidates." The guide to presenting candidates shows what agency recruiters are aiming for, which helps you ask for it.
If you work with more than one agency on a role, give each the same brief changes on the same day. An agency that learns about a changed must-have a week late has spent that week searching for the old role.
What to leave out of feedback
Feedback is a hiring record, it is often relayed, and it can be requested. In the UK, for example, the ICO's guide to subject access explains that people have the right to obtain a copy of their personal information, and written feedback about a named candidate is information about them. Write every line as if the candidate may read it one day.
- Anything about protected characteristics or the words that stand in for them: age ("young energy", "digital native"), family, health, religion, accent, origin.
- Appearance and style unless the job has a genuine, written requirement.
- "Culture fit" without a named value and a behavior. If you mean something, write the behavior.
- Guesses about someone's life: "probably won't stay", "seems like they have a lot going on".
- Jokes and nicknames, including in a quick chat message you think nobody else will see.
What not to write in interview notes has a full rewrite table. If a candidate volunteered something personal in the interview, it does not go in the feedback either.
If writing feedback promptly is hard because your notes are thin, Interview Signal captures the interview on your own computer, with no bot joining the call, and drafts a scorecard where each score carries the candidate's words, checked against the transcript. The decision and the reasons stay yours.
A checklist for every piece of feedback
- Sent within the time agreed at intake, or a holding note with a date.
- A decision the recruiter can act on: advance, no, or a named question with a deadline.
- The reason tied to a must-have, with one example from the resume or the interview.
- "Not assessed" where you did not cover something, rather than a guess.
- What the candidate asked or seemed unsure about.
- A sentence the recruiter can relay to the candidate, and anything internal marked as such.
- Anything that should change in the search, or "no change".
- Nothing about protected characteristics, appearance, or undefined fit.
- Once a week: rejection reasons grouped, and a recalibration call booked if one reason dominates.
When the slate is done and you are choosing between finalists, move to how to compare candidates after interviews. When the answer is no, the recruiter will need wording; the rejection email templates cover each stage.
Questions people ask
How fast should I give a recruiter feedback on a resume?
Agree a time at intake and keep to it. One business day for resumes and the same or next business day after an interview are workable targets for most teams. The exact number matters less than the recruiter being able to tell candidates when they will hear.
Do I need to give a reason when I pass on a resume?
Yes, one line. "No: has not managed people" tells the recruiter what to change. A bare no gives them nothing, and the next batch of resumes will look the same as the last.
Will my feedback be passed on to the candidate?
Assume the gist will be. Recruiters relay feedback so candidates can decide whether to stay in the process. Write what you would be comfortable having read back, and mark anything that is internal only.
What if the recruiter keeps sending candidates who miss the mark?
Read your last five or so rejections for a pattern before blaming the search. If the same must-have keeps missing, the brief is either unclear or out of line with the pay, level or location, and a 20-minute recalibration call fixes more than another week of rejections.