Review an AI Job Description Against the Role You Are Hiring For
Verify AI-generated duties, qualifications, and work conditions against the actual role, then resolve missing facts with hiring owners before approving the posting.
An AI-generated job description is a draft of claims about a role. Check each duty, qualification, and work condition against evidence from the people responsible for that work. A polished template cannot tell you which duty is essential or which credential belongs in the posting.
Keep a source trail showing what the draft says, what confirms it, and the hiring owner's decision. Resolve missing facts before turning them into public requirements.
Start with a role packet
Gather current information close to the work: a hiring-manager interview, team responsibilities, an existing position description, approved organizational details, location, and outcomes the new hire will own. Date each source and identify its owner. A description from the last hiring round may no longer represent the vacancy.
Mark missing reporting lines, travel, schedules, compensation, credentials, and team structure as needs confirmation. A text generator cannot supply those organizational decisions. Describe the role being filled, rather than collecting every task the team has ever performed.
The US Office of Personnel Management defines a federal position description around major duties, responsibilities, and supervisory relationships. That is a useful example of focusing on meaningful work. Federal classification procedures do not automatically apply to private employers or other countries.
Compare statements one at a time
Use a review table with four columns:
| Draft statement | Supporting evidence | Decision | Open question |
|---|---|---|---|
| Exact duty, qualification, or condition | Dated source and owner | Confirm, revise, remove, or pending | What the hiring owner must resolve |
Include the role summary, major duties, required and preferred criteria, reporting relationships, work location, and schedule or physical conditions. Ask whether the evidence confirms the whole statement, whether the wording matches its scope, and whether the hiring owner agrees it belongs in the posting.
Consider an invented teaching example, not a real employer or recommended experience threshold. A hiring manager says the role mainly prepares monthly customer reports and coordinates corrections with two internal teams. AI adds:
- Manage a global team.
- Own all customer analytics strategy.
- Require ten years of experience.
Those additions need deletion or owner confirmation unless the role packet establishes them. They are not implied by preparing reports or coordinating corrections.
A written description can also have consequences beyond recruitment. In the US ADA context, the EEOC's employer guidance says a description prepared before advertising or interviewing may be considered evidence of essential functions. Other evidence can matter too. This is a US-specific context, not a universal test or a finding that a posting complies with law.
Distinguish requirements from preferences
For each “must have,” identify the task or approved business need it serves and the person who confirmed that connection. Look for preferences accidentally turned into gates, unexplained degree requirements, unsupported experience thresholds, and criteria copied from another role.
Move a criterion into preferred only after the owner confirms it is useful but unnecessary. Otherwise keep it unresolved. Changing its heading is itself a hiring decision, not a copy-editing shortcut.
Do not infer from wording alone that a credential is legally required, a condition is permissible, or a criterion is discriminatory. Jurisdiction and circumstances matter. Route those questions to the appropriate HR or legal reviewer and follow the applicable local process before publication. The bias-review guide can support editorial scrutiny without replacing that judgment.
Verify conditions and decision rights
Confirm location, schedule, travel, physical requirements, reporting line, and employment arrangement with an owner. Candidates use these facts to decide whether to apply. Common template language is not a basis for guessing them.
When a condition varies by assignment or remains unsettled, ask whether it belongs in the public description and how its limits should appear. Do not quietly turn conditional work into a universal requirement.
Then examine scope. “Support,” “coordinate,” “approve,” and “own” describe different decision rights. Compare verbs with actual accountability. AI may combine neighboring jobs or promote a supporting contribution into sole ownership. Keep only the level of responsibility the evidence supports.
Resolve the record, then edit the prose
Assign each table row a final decision: confirmed, revise, remove, or pending owner decision. Keep unresolved statements out of the approved copy until answered. If an owner changes a duty or qualification, update the source packet so later reviewers can trace the decision.
Once facts are settled, group related duties, use direct verbs, remove duplicate requirements, and standardize terminology. The style-sheet guide helps record language choices; the fact-checking workflow helps track evidence. Neither takes over the hiring owner's role.
Use grammar and style assistance for a final language pass if appropriate, then recheck titles, requirements, and responsibility verbs. Stylistic compression should preserve the distinctions you just approved.
Obtain approval from the responsible reviewers
Ask the hiring owner to confirm duties and qualifications. HR or legal staff should review matters within their remit. The approver should be able to trace important claims and see which decisions remain unresolved. Retain the final copy, review date, and source notes under the organization's recordkeeping practice.
A specific federal example reinforces the division of responsibility. OPM's USA Class general questions assigns verification of generated major duties to managers while classifiers handle their classification responsibilities. That describes a federal workflow. The narrower editorial lesson is to identify who owns the job facts and who can approve the document.
Common questions
Should a qualification stay because AI included it?
No. Find the supporting task or approved criterion, then have the owner decide whether it is required, preferred, or unsupported. Do not publish an unverified gate.
Is the written description the only evidence of duties?
No. In the US ADA context, a pre-advertising description may be evidence alongside actual work and other circumstances. Ask qualified HR or legal staff about the relevant facts and law.
Can employers use this process everywhere?
The evidence comparison is an editorial method. Employment law, disclosures, and approval procedures differ by location. Confirm local requirements before publication.
OPM's job-analysis checklist also emphasizes work information and subject-matter input. These US examples support a source-based editing routine; they do not establish a universal template or a compliance conclusion.
