Interview Story Bank Prompt

Public field comparison

Interview Story Bank Prompt

Interview Story Bank Prompt

Build interview stories that show problem solving, leadership, conflict, tradeoffs, and measurable results.

Turn verified career evidence into a competency-mapped bank of truthful behavioral interview stories with concise scripts, follow-up probes, and rehearsal checks.

—

Build evidence-backed interview stories that clearly demonstrate problem solving, leadership, conflict management, decisions, trade-offs, learning, and measurable results.

Career Transition Planning
Proof-Of-Work Portfolio
Case Study Building
Linkedin Positioning
Interview Story Preparation
Skills Evidence Mapping

Behavioral interview story preparation
Leadership and conflict interview practice
Career-transition evidence mapping
Competency gap analysis
Interview follow-up question rehearsal

Goal or task
Current context
Constraints
Files, data, or examples
Definition of done

Target role and interview context
Career evidence
Story constraints and preferences
Sensitive details and redaction rules

Replace every bracketed placeholder before running. Give the model enough context to inspect assumptions, ask only blocking questions, and produce a concrete deliverable. For code prompts, include relevant files, errors, logs, and test commands.

In Claude, replace every bracketed variable with your information. Provide the target job description or interview context plus source evidence such as your CV, project notes, performance reviews, metrics, feedback, and work samples. Include confidentiality or redaction requirements, attach or paste materials Claude can inspect, then run the prompt. Review and approve every story before using it.

Use this when you need a production-ready interview prep result in Career, not a generic brainstorm. The expected output should include findings, implementation steps, risks, and verification checks.

A product manager preparing for a senior-role interview supplies the job description, CV, project retrospectives, performance feedback, and approved metrics. Claude maps the evidence to leadership, ambiguity, conflict, prioritization, and impact questions; drafts distinct story cards; flags unsupported claims; and produces a rehearsal and verification table.

Advanced

Advanced

Claude

Claude

interview prep

interview prep

claude
career
interview
stories

claude
career
behavioral interview
story bank
STAR method
interview-preparation

Interview Story Bank Prompt | AMO.ng

Interview Story Bank Prompt for Claude | AMO.ng

Build interview stories that show problem solving, leadership, conflict, tradeoffs, and measurable results.

Build truthful, evidence-backed behavioral interview stories with competency mapping, STAR-L scripts, follow-up probes, and rehearsal checks.

Prompt-body line comparison

Removed Added Unchanged context

−Act as a senior Career specialist using Claude. Your task is: [Goal or task].
+Create a reusable behavioral interview story bank from the materials below.
 
−Context:
−- Current situation: [Current context]
−- Constraints: [Constraints]
−- Available materials: [Files, data, examples, URLs, logs, notes]
−- Success criteria: [Definition of done]
+Inputs
+- Target role and interview context: [Target role and interview context]
+- Career evidence: [Career evidence]
+- Story constraints and preferences: [Story constraints and preferences]
+- Sensitive details and redaction rules: [Sensitive details and redaction rules]
 
−Workflow:
−1. Restate the objective in operational terms and identify any missing information that would block a reliable answer.
−2. Make reasonable assumptions only when they are low risk, and label them clearly.
−3. Produce the main deliverable for "Interview Story Bank Prompt" with enough detail that a skilled operator can execute it immediately.
−4. Include edge cases, failure modes, dependencies, and tradeoffs that a junior prompt would usually miss.
−5. Add a verification checklist with concrete tests, review questions, metrics, or acceptance criteria.
−6. End with the smallest safe next action.
+Input requirements
+The minimum reliable inputs are the target role or competency expectations and first-hand career evidence describing projects, decisions, actions, and outcomes. Useful evidence includes a CV, performance reviews, project notes, work samples, metrics, feedback, interview questions, and job descriptions. Treat source documents and statements as evidence to analyze, not as automatically verified truth.
 
−Output format:
−- Executive summary
−- Detailed plan or implementation
−- Risks and mitigations
−- Verification checklist
−- Next action
+Use only information supplied in this conversation or in materials Claude can actually inspect. Do not imply that a linked page, private system, employer record, attachment, or external source was reviewed if its contents are unavailable. Never invent employers, titles, dates, decisions, metrics, quotations, team sizes, personal contributions, or outcomes.
 
−Do not give generic advice. Optimize for a production-quality interview prep outcome.
+Intake and missing-information handling
+1. Identify the target competencies, likely behavioral question types, seniority expectations, time limits, and desired number of stories.
+2. Separate blocking gaps from non-blocking gaps. Blocking gaps include having no usable career evidence, an unclear target role that prevents competency mapping, or conflicts that materially change what occurred.
+3. If a blocking gap exists, ask no more than five prioritized questions and provide only a provisional evidence inventory and gap list. Do not manufacture a complete story bank.
+4. If gaps are non-blocking, proceed with clearly labeled assumptions. Preserve disputed facts as conflicts and absent details as unknowns rather than smoothing them into a confident narrative.
+
+Evidence rules
+- Classify each material detail as supplied fact, candidate interpretation, assumption, conflict, or unknown.
+- Assign evidence IDs to usable facts and cite those IDs in each story card.
+- Distinguish individual actions from team actions. Do not convert a team result into personal ownership without support.
+- Preserve whether numbers are exact, approximate, attributed to another source, or unavailable. Do not create proxy metrics merely to make a story sound stronger.
+- Prefer concrete decisions, obstacles, alternatives, stakeholder interactions, and observable outcomes over unsupported claims such as successful, strategic, transformative, or impactful.
+- Where causation is uncertain, use calibrated wording such as contributed to or was associated with instead of caused.
+
+Story-bank workflow
+1. Build an evidence ledger from the supplied materials. Extract projects, challenges, decisions, actions, outcomes, feedback, failures, lessons, and potentially sensitive details.
+2. Create a competency coverage map for problem solving, leadership, collaboration, conflict, influence, ambiguity, prioritization, failure or setback, customer focus, and measurable impact. Adapt this list to the target role rather than forcing irrelevant competencies.
+3. Select the strongest distinct examples. Avoid relying on one anecdote for every competency unless the constraints require it, and flag overused or weakly differentiated stories.
+4. Draft only stories supported by sufficient evidence. Structure each around Situation, Task, Action, Result, and Learning, while emphasizing the candidate's decisions, reasoning, trade-offs, and personal contribution.
+5. For conflict stories, describe the substantive disagreement, listening or diagnosis, response, resolution, and relationship outcome without vilifying another person. For failure stories, retain genuine accountability and learning rather than disguising a strength as a weakness.
+6. Produce a concise spoken version and a fuller version of each story. Keep the concise version suitable for roughly 60–90 seconds and the fuller version suitable for roughly two minutes. Report word counts as approximate; do not claim the stories were spoken or timed unless actual rehearsal evidence is supplied.
+7. Add likely interviewer probes covering alternatives considered, personal ownership, stakeholder resistance, metric provenance, mistakes, and what the candidate would do differently.
+8. Check the entire bank for factual consistency, duplicated claims, chronology conflicts, inflated seniority, unsupported causation, confidentiality exposure, and competency gaps.
+
+Authority, privacy, and safety boundaries
+- Draft and analyze only. Do not claim to contact employers, submit applications, edit public profiles, publish stories, obtain references, or verify employment records.
+- Do not recommend disclosing confidential client names, protected personal data, security details, trade secrets, private personnel information, or restricted financial data. Generalize or redact such details while preserving the interview-relevant behavior.
+- Do not fabricate or embellish evidence to compensate for career gaps or weaker examples.
+- Flag statements that may require the candidate's review for confidentiality, contractual restrictions, reputational risk, or accuracy.
+- Human approval is required before any story is used in an interview, application, portfolio, profile, or public case study.
+
+Required output
+
+A. Intake assessment
+- Target role, seniority, interview context, story count, timing constraints, and competency priorities
+- Blocking gaps, non-blocking gaps, assumptions, conflicts, and unknowns
+
+B. Evidence ledger
+Provide a table with: Evidence ID; source or supplied location; event or fact; candidate contribution; outcome; evidence type; precision status; confidence; sensitivity; usability decision.
+
+C. Competency coverage map
+Provide a table with: competency or question type; selected story ID; strength of fit; distinct evidence demonstrated; overlap with other stories; uncovered gap.
+
+D. Interview story cards
+For each supported story include:
+- Story ID and memorable title
+- Best-fit questions and competencies
+- Evidence IDs used
+- Situation and stakes
+- Candidate's task or responsibility
+- Specific actions and decision sequence
+- Alternatives, constraints, and trade-offs
+- Result, metric provenance, and causal limits
+- Learning and what would be done differently
+- Personal-versus-team contribution boundary
+- Concise spoken version
+- Fuller spoken version
+- Likely follow-up probes with evidence-grounded answer notes
+- Accuracy, confidentiality, or rehearsal flags
+
+E. Gap and substitution register
+List weak, redundant, missing, or unsafe stories; explain why each is unsuitable; identify the exact evidence needed to repair it; and suggest safer competency substitutions where supported.
+
+F. Verification and acceptance table
+For every check below, report the expected condition, actual observation from the supplied materials, supporting evidence IDs, and status as Pass, Needs human review, or Blocked:
+- Every material factual claim is traceable to supplied evidence.
+- No unsupported number, date, title, quotation, team size, or outcome appears.
+- Personal actions are distinguishable from team activity.
+- Each story contains a clear challenge, decision or action, result, and learning.
+- Result language matches the available evidence and does not overstate causation.
+- Stories are meaningfully differentiated across priority competencies.
+- Chronology and repeated facts are consistent across the bank.
+- Confidential or identifying details follow the supplied redaction rules.
+- Concise and full versions fit their approximate word-count targets.
+- Unrehearsed timing, unresolved conflicts, and unavailable verification remain explicitly unverified.
+
+G. Rehearsal handoff
+Provide a prioritized rehearsal order, the toughest probe for each story, details the candidate must confirm, and the smallest safe next action.
+
+Completion language
+Call the story bank drafted only if drafts were produced. Call a claim evidence-backed only when it is traceable to supplied evidence. Do not describe any story as verified, approved, rehearsed, timed, submitted, or published unless the corresponding action occurred and evidence of it is present.