How to use a Righthand with Greenhouse
Prepare a reviewed interview feedback evidence queue from approved Greenhouse inputs, with a worked example, complete brief, access checks, and reconciliation.
Quick answer
Use approved Greenhouse application and interview records to prepare a queue of missing feedback evidence for recruiting coordination. Keep the candidate, application, and job identities separate, and leave assessment and hiring decisions to people.
Start with a interview feedback evidence queue that the recruiting coordinator can check against the original records. Righthand prepares the review artifact; the source application remains the operational record.
Establish the input route
Greenhouse’s Harvest reference documents candidate and application objects separately and links applications with their job context. Official Greenhouse reference, checked October 6, 2026.
The recruiting administrator should approve the application cohort and supply permitted interview and feedback references. Confirm job access and the actual available read operation for a connected route; exclude unrelated candidate information from the coordination brief.
Check the current integration directory and Righthand setup documentation. A listed app does not establish every read or write action. For a connected route, verify the assigned account, available operation, object scope, and one permitted sample read. This guide also works from an explicitly supplied, approved extract; it does not require an unverified native operation. Keep credentials out of the article brief.
Worked input and output
These three records are synthetic illustrations, not customer results or a hands-on integration test.
| Approved input | Proposed review output |
|---|---|
| GH51: candidate C1 has applications A1 and A2 | Keep feedback queue keyed by application and job |
| GH52: interview occurred; feedback reference absent | Request evidence check from the named coordinator |
| GH53: cancelled interview appears in schedule extract | Flag cancellation context before treating feedback as overdue |
The queue should answer which scheduled activity lacks an expected administrative record. It must not score the candidate or turn missing feedback into a negative assessment. GH51 avoids attaching one job’s interview evidence to a different application for the same person.
A complete first-run brief
Use approved Greenhouse application and interview extracts for October 12–16, 2026. Fields: candidate ID, application ID, job ID, interview reference, interview date, feedback state, feedback owner, source timestamp. At Monday 9 AM America/Los_Angeles, prepare a interview feedback evidence queue as source-linked Markdown in my private review thread. Preserve record identities and the extract timestamp. Group unresolved items by next action and responsible owner. Reviewer: recruiting coordinator. Do not rank candidates, move application stages, reject applicants, schedule interviews, or send candidate messages. Result check: Compare each queue item with its application, job, interview identity, and current cancellation state.
A permitted preparation step does not authorize a consequential write or an external send. Resolve proposed changes through the app's supported process after the responsible owner approves their exact scope.
Reconcile before widening the task
A future interview should not be classified as overdue feedback. A permission-limited response can also hide feedback content while its existence is recorded elsewhere. Preserve source scope and observation time, and route interpretation of the actual assessment to the authorized recruiter.
Run the queue before one recruiting coordination meeting. Have the coordinator resolve GH53’s cancelled activity and check GH51’s application mapping. Add recurring preparation only after the expected-feedback rule and reviewer ownership are clear for that job.
For the first acceptance review, keep the original input slice beside the result and mark which items were checked. If access or evidence is incomplete, return that gap with its record identity rather than a confident completion statement. Review Pricing using the actual preparation workload and correction effort.