Candidate memory across interviewers

​

The scenario

​

Step 1 — Scope notes to the candidate

client.record(
    space_id="hiring",
    content="Strong on distributed systems; vague on how they handled the rollback, worth probing.",
    user_id="cand-8812",
    agent_id="interviewer-sam",
)

​

Step 2 — Brief the next interviewer

print(client.ask_about_user(
    space_id="hiring",
    user_id="cand-8812",
    query="What is already covered, and what did earlier interviewers want probed?",
))

​

Step 3 — See the shape of the panel

entities = client.list_entities(space_id="hiring", limit=20)

​

Evals

1. Run one real loop, recording after each interview.
2. Before the final interview, generate the briefing and ask that interviewer whether it changed their plan.
3. Check no note leaks across candidates: query with a different user_id and confirm nothing returns.
4. Compare time-to-decision against loops run without it.

​

Guardrails

• Do not let a briefing replace an independent read. Handing interviewer four a summary of three opinions is how a panel converges on the first opinion. Share what was covered; be careful about sharing what was concluded.
• Never use this to score or rank candidates automatically. It is a retrieval system, not an assessment, and in several jurisdictions automated decision-making here carries specific legal obligations.
• Keep the space off-limits to the hiring manager’s wider org. Scope is relevance, not access.

​

Built from