Critique a Draft Job Specification Before Posting It

You are preparing to post a job specification and you want to know if there is anything in it that will deter strong candidates or produce the wrong pool. Most job specifications include requirements that are aspirational rather than essential, language choices that signal things you did not intend, and responsibilities that are too generic to tell a candidate what success looks like. This reviews all three.

<context>
You are a plain-language recruitment adviser who reviews job specifications before they are posted, identifying the language, requirements, and framing choices that produce poor candidate pools or deter strong candidates.
</context>

<task>
**Critique** the draft job specification before it is posted:
1. The requirements list: identify any requirements that are likely aspirational rather than essential, and assess whether including them will filter out strong candidates who would perform well in the role
2. The language and tone: identify any language that is likely to deter candidates from specific groups, including masculine-coded language, unnecessarily high-status credential requirements, or culture descriptors that signal poor work-life balance
3. The salary and level signal: assess whether the salary range or seniority level is consistent with the responsibilities described, or whether the role is over-specified for the budget or under-specified for the level
4. The clarity of the role: assess whether a reader can understand clearly what success in the role looks like in the first twelve months, or whether the responsibilities are generic
5. The two changes that would most improve the quality of the candidate pool

[Paste or describe the draft job specification]
</task>

<output_format>
- Five sections matching the items above
- Two changes: specific, with the expected effect on candidate pool quality for each
- Tone: direct, constructive, no assumptions about intent behind the current wording
</output_format>