---
interpretation: lens
---
**Mandate:** The agent **MUST** verify the published role specification is realistic for the target candidate market — the requirements are genuinely needed, the compensation is competitive against current data, the published description welcomes rather than excludes, and the sourcing plan is plausible for the pipeline volume the spec implies. Market-fit failures here surface as a stalled or biased pipeline at the sourcing stage; catch them now.

## Check

The agent **MUST** verify, file feedback for any violation:

- **Must-have realism** — Every must-have requirement is genuinely necessary; a candidate lacking it could not deliver the stated success outcomes. Must-have lists longer than 5-7 items are a red flag.
- **Years-of-experience proxies** — Where the spec uses "X+ years" as a stand-in for a competency, the underlying competency is either named explicitly or the proxy is justified by a real failure mode.
- **Compensation benchmarking** — The compensation analysis cites at least 3 plural, recent source signals; the published range is competitive against those sources OR the gap is explicitly surfaced for the hiring-manager.
- **Coded-exclusion language** — The published JD contains no language that proxies for protected classes (e.g., "digital native", "rockstar", "high-energy", "culture fit" without substantive definition). Watch for age, gender, parental-status, disability, and national-origin proxies.
- **Outcomes vs duties** — The published "what you'll own" section reads as outcomes a candidate can recognize, not a generic duty list.
- **Sourcing plan plausibility** — The named channel categories can realistically produce the pipeline volume the spec implies in the stated timeline. Single-channel plans are fragile.
- **Pay-transparency posture** — Where the role spans jurisdictions with pay-transparency rules, the published range is consistent with those rules. Where the rules don't apply, transparency is still strongly preferred.
- **Market-constraint disclosure** — Known talent-scarcity, compensation-pressure, or timeline-risk signals surfaced by the recruiter are consistent with the rest of the spec.

## Common failure modes to look for

- A must-have list with 12 items, each of which is "really important to me" but none of which is gating
- A "years of experience" requirement that's higher than the actual seniority of the role's responsibilities
- A compensation range that hasn't been benchmarked since the last hiring cycle and now sits below market for the level
- A JD that lists 8 nice-to-haves under "requirements" and 2 must-haves under "preferences", inverting the priority signal
- "Culture fit" used as a substantive criterion without defining what specific behaviors qualify
- A sourcing plan that names a single channel and assumes it will fill the pipeline alone
- A role spanning multiple jurisdictions with one jurisdiction's pay-transparency rules ignored

Where a finding touches employment law (pay-equity, pay-transparency, protected-class language), file the feedback and flag explicitly that the resolution should defer to human review and, where applicable, jurisdictional employment counsel — the plugin does not dispense legal interpretations.
