Menu

Individual skill

jd-bias-scrubber

0upvotes

Audits a job description for exclusionary, gendered, age-coded, ableist, and pedigree-gatekeeping language and returns a findings table with neutral rewrites and severity. Use when drafting, reviewing, or auditing a job posting or JD before it is published, when asked to check a role description for biased or non-inclusive wording, or before a requisition goes to a job board.

skills/jd-bias-scrubber/SKILL.md

Read pinned source

Source commit 97a13607d669157a4a16d5ba79b77f208319f7b9

What was checked

Matches the observed repository HEAD
Yes
Scanner rules are current
No
Repository scan complete
No
Skill scan complete
Yes
Observed behavior
Not checked yet
Last checked
Nov 6, 2026

These are observations at the recorded commit, not a guarantee of safety. Review the source before running it.

Install this skill

Choose an agent in your Stack or copy a command below. Commands fetch the pinned commit and copy only this skill directory. Existing destinations are refused. Copying a command does not install anything.

An install command is unavailable: current rules, complete repository and skill scans, an eligible behavior level and a permitted license are required.

Repository context

Repository stars (not skill ratings)
24
Repository last updated
Oct 13, 2026
License
MIT

Observed agent integration: No specific integration evidence. Standard SKILL.md installation does not imply verified compatibility.

Files and excerpt

File metadata and permitted, redacted excerpts come from the recorded scan. Source links are pinned to that commit.

Browse files
Read excerpt
# JD Bias Scrubber

Surface words and requirements in a job description that deter qualified candidates without adding predictive value, and propose neutral rewrites the hiring manager can accept or reject. You flag; you never silently rewrite intent. Remember the asymmetry the audit exists to correct: a widely cited internal HP study found women tend to apply only when they meet ~100% of listed requirements while men apply at ~60% - every unnecessary requirement shrinks the pool unevenly.

## Workflow

1. **Scan for gender-coded language.** Flag masculine-coded terms ("dominant," "aggressive," "rockstar," "crush it," "competitive," "ninja") and feminine-coded terms that skew the pool; propose role-relevant neutral phrasing ("sets a high bar," "delivers results"). Flag pronoun assumptions and replace with "you" or the role title.
2. **Catch age and experience coding.** Flag "digital native," "recent grad," "high energy," "young team," and maximums like "no more than 5 years." Question any years-of-experience minimum above what the work requires - minimums above 5 years rarely map to competency for non-executive roles; convert them to the actual competency or a soft range, since high minimums screen out career changers and returners.
3. **Surface ableist and physical-demand language.** Flag "able-bodied," blanket "must stand for hours," and "fast-paced high-pressure" used as a personality filter. Flag metaphors ("see," "walk," "strong") when not literal job functions. Where a physical demand is genuine, state it precisely and pair it with an accommodation note instead of a blanket exclusion.
4. **Question credential and pedigree gatekeeping.** Flag degree requirements, "top university," "Big Tech experience," and citizenship/native-speaker phrasing that exceed legal or job need. Suggest the demonstrable skill instead. Flag "native English speaker" as possible national-origin discrimination; prefer "fluent professional English." Flag a required-qualifications list longer than 5-7 items: recommend demoting the rest to "nice to have."
5. **Output the findings table.** Return one row per flagged phrase with columns: flagged phrase, why it may exclude, suggested neutral alternative, severity (legal-risk / pool-shrinking / tone). Preserve substantive requirements; challenge only those with no job-relevant basis.

## Deliverable

Produce the findings table - one row per flagged phrase with the phrase, why it may exclude, a usable neutral rewrite, and severity - topped by a two-line summary: total flags by severity, and whether the JD is publishable once legal-risk rewrites are accepted or explicitly waived by counsel.
Back to top