Write and check your selection criteria responses

Paste a selection criterion and your response to see which parts of the criterion you’ve proven, where your example is thin and whether it fits the word limit. No response yet? Paste rough notes and get a draft built only from your own facts.

Example result

An APS 5 communication criterion, checked and drafted

The same council rates-team story twice: first as a typical written response, then as rough notes turned into a draft. This is what the tool returned for it, unedited. Press Try an example above to load it into the tool. The people and companies are made up.

Checking a response

What was pasted in

The criterion

Demonstrated high-level written and verbal communication skills, including the ability to liaise effectively with a range of stakeholders. Level: APS 5 · Word limit: 400

The response

I have excellent written and verbal communication skills which I have developed over many years in customer-facing and administrative roles. I am confident communicating with people at all levels. In my current role at the regional council, our team was responsible for updating the rates notices after the new valuation system came in. Residents were confused and we were getting a lot of calls. We worked together to rewrite the letters in plain English and I also put together a script for the phone team so everyone gave the same answers. The new letters were well received and the number of complaints went down. My manager said the project was a great success.

0 of 3 parts of the criterion are proven

Take personal ownership of the example. Right now the team did the work and you only "also" made a script. State what you were personally responsible for, describe in "I" terms how you rewrote the letters and handled the calls, and add at least one concrete stakeholder interaction so the liaison element is actually shown.

113

of 400 words

!
High-level written communication skills
Your response: We worked together to rewrite the letters in plain English
There is a real example of writing: rewriting rates notice letters in plain English. But the action is mostly attributed to the team ("We worked together to rewrite the letters"), so your personal contribution to the writing is thin. Add what you personally drafted or changed.
!
High-level verbal communication skills
Your response: I also put together a script for the phone team so everyone gave the same answers.
The phone script is a written product, not evidence of you communicating verbally. The response never shows you speaking with anyone: no example of handling a difficult call, briefing the phone team, or explaining the changes to a resident.
✕
Liaising effectively with a range of stakeholders
The only stakeholders mentioned are residents, and only indirectly as confused callers. There is no example of you liaising with anyone: no residents, phone team members, valuers, or other council areas. "A range of stakeholders" needs more than one group, and it needs you doing the liaising.

Your example, part by part

STARM

✓ Situation: The situation is clear and specific: a new valuation system at a regional council caused resident confusion and a high volume of calls. our team was responsible for updating the rates notices after the new valuation system came in. Residents were confused and we were getting a lot of calls.
✕ Task: The task belongs to the team, not to you. The response says "our team was responsible" but never states what you personally were responsible for. Fix by naming your role, for example that you were asked to rewrite the letters or to develop the phone script. our team was responsible for updating the rates notices after the new valuation system came in.
✓ Action: Action is present but weakly owned. The response says "We worked together to rewrite the letters" and only "I also put together a script". At APS 5 the panel wants to see what you personally did: which letters you drafted, how you simplified the language, how you built the script, and how you liaised with callers or the phone team. We worked together to rewrite the letters in plain English and I also put together a script for the phone team so everyone gave the same answers.
✓ Result: A result is present: the letters were well received and complaints went down. But it is vague, with no number or timeframe, and the success is partly attributed to the manager's opinion rather than a measurable change. The new letters were well received and the number of complaints went down. My manager said the project was a great success.
✕ Metric: No number is given for the improvement. the number of complaints went down

Level

At APS 5 the panel expects you to own outcomes and show judgement, not just participate. This response reads like an APS 3 to 4 team contribution ("we worked together") rather than an APS 5 who led the rewrite, handled the difficult conversations, and coordinated the stakeholders.

What to change

Rewrite the action in the first person. Instead of "We worked together to rewrite the letters", say what you personally did, for example which sections you rewrote or how you simplified the wording.
Add a verbal communication example. Describe one specific interaction: a confused or angry resident you talked through, or how you briefed the phone team on the new script.
Show liaison with a range of stakeholders. Name at least two groups you dealt with, such as residents, the phone team, the valuation area, or your manager, and give one example of working with each.

Quotes are checked against what you pasted: a part marked proven always has one. AI can still misread things, so treat this as a second opinion.

Drafting from notes

What was pasted in

The criterion

Demonstrated high-level written and verbal communication skills, including the ability to liaise effectively with a range of stakeholders.

The notes

- regional council, rates team, 3 years - new valuation system 2024, rates notices confusing, phones flooded - I rewrote the notice letter in plain English, tested it with 5 residents at the front counter - wrote a call script + FAQ for the 6 phone staff, ran a 30 min briefing - met the valuation contractor every fortnight to check figures before letters went out - calls about notices dropped from about 120 a week to 40

Your draft response

Written only from your notes. Read it aloud once and change anything that doesn’t sound like you.

221

of 400 words

Draft

I have high-level written and verbal communication skills, which I have used to liaise effectively with a range of stakeholders.

At a regional council, where I worked in the rates team for three years, the introduction of a new valuation system in 2024 made rates notices confusing, and our phones were flooded with calls from residents.

I took responsibility for fixing this. I rewrote the notice letter in plain English and tested it with five residents at the front counter to make sure it was clear. I then wrote a call script and an FAQ for the six phone staff and ran a 30-minute briefing to walk them through it. I also met with the valuation contractor every fortnight to check the figures before letters went out, so that any errors were caught before residents saw them.

As a result, calls about notices dropped from about 120 a week to 40. The rewritten letter and supporting materials meant residents could understand their notices without needing to call, and the phone staff had the tools to handle the calls that did come in.

This experience shows I can communicate clearly in writing, brief others verbally, and liaise with external contractors and colleagues. I would bring these same skills to this role, communicating clearly with stakeholders and helping the team manage high-demand periods.

The 3 parts marked in red say something your notes don’t. Change or remove them unless they’re true.

✕
high-level written communication skills
Nothing in your notes shows this yet.
The notes cover writing clearly, but do they show anything else about written communication, such as reports or correspondence beyond the notice letter and FAQ?
✕
high-level verbal communication skills
Nothing in your notes shows this yet.
The notes show a briefing and phone work, but is there evidence of verbal communication with stakeholders such as residents or difficult conversations?
✕
liaising effectively with a range of stakeholders
Nothing in your notes shows this yet.
The notes show liaison with the valuation contractor and phone staff. Are there other stakeholders, such as internal teams, councillors or residents' groups?

Questions to ask yourself

The notes show liaison with the valuation contractor and phone staff, but are there other stakeholders you liaised with, such as internal teams, councillors or residents' groups?
Is there evidence of verbal communication with stakeholders beyond the briefing, such as handling difficult calls or explaining the new system to residents?

Numbers that weren’t in your notes are replaced with a gap, so the draft can’t claim something you didn’t give it. It’s your name on the application; read it through.

How it works

What this tool looks for

Every part of the criterion

Most criteria ask for more than one thing: “written and verbal communication, including liaising with stakeholders” is three. The check splits the criterion into its parts and looks for proof of each in your response, with the line that proves it.

Proven: a specific example shows it
Thin: claimed, but without an example
Missing: not addressed

An example in STAR order

Panels look for evidence, not adjectives. The check reads your example as Situation, Task, Action and Result, flags “we” where the panel needs to hear what you did, and says whether the result has a number. It also says whether the scope suits the level, from APS 1–4 up to EL1 and EL2.

Drafts from your facts only

In draft mode the response is written from your notes and nothing else. Where it needs a fact you didn’t give, such as how much something improved, it leaves a gap in [brackets]. Numbers that weren’t in your notes are replaced with a gap, and names that weren’t there are flagged.

Questions

About this tool

How long should a selection criteria response be?

Use the limit in the job ad or position description. Without one, 250 to 400 words for each criterion is typical, or one to two pages for a pitch. The tool counts your words and shows how far over or under you are.

Does it work for pitches and targeted questions?

Yes. For a one or two page pitch, check one example at a time against the criterion or capability it’s meant to show. For a targeted question, paste the question as the criterion.

Is it allowed to use AI for selection criteria?

Agencies expect your response to be your own and true; some ask you to say whether you used AI. Use the draft as a starting point, fill the gaps with what really happened and rewrite it in your own words. Never claim experience you don’t have.

Is what I paste stored?

No. What you paste is sent to the AI to produce your result and isn’t saved. We keep a record that the tool ran (not what you pasted) and a scrambled form of your IP address for up to two days, to limit each tool to 3 checks a day.

How many times can I use it?

Three times a day without an account. With a free account, CandidThread keeps your examples as stories and writes the responses for a whole job from them: every criterion, to the word limit, ready to export to Word.