Chief of Staff
JotPsych · New York, NY · 1 mo ago
On-siteAdministrative$130k–$160k/yrFull-time
We need to output HTML fragment with sections: About the role, Responsibilities, Requirements, Qualifications, Skills, Benefits, Pay, Schedule. Only include sections that have real specific content.
We must not repeat job title as heading. No Job ID etc. Remove boilerplate.
We need to preserve all substantive info.
Let's parse the posting.
Key sections:
- About the role: description of role: JotPsych makes software... expanding... small team in NY, every non-engineering hire starts as Chief of Staff. You take on whatever the company needs most, week to week: sales problem, operations problem, product problem, work between founders and everything not getting done. Nothing off the table. Tooling makes it possible. With real agency and sharp command of tools (Claude now, maybe something else in three months), one person can reach across nearly every domain: marketing, sales, analytics, product, strategy, partnerships, operations, etc. You not only get to do everything; you can. It is the rare mid-career role where you take it all on, find the part you are best at, and grow into the executive seat that fits.
- THE ROLE: "We hand you an open-ended problem and you return it solved. Not analyzed, not framed as a deck, not handed back as a list of options. Solved. Don't tell us the answer, do the answer. That one line is most of the job. The work is whatever the company needs most that week, and it is always high-trust and high-stakes. You get into every corner of a process, you talk to the people involved, you research with AI and with your own judgment, and you find the shortest path that actually works. You build systems that we then scale, so we have to trust them, which means we have to trust you. You use AI heavily, and you never ship its output unread. You reach for the tools on instinct, and you have the taste to catch the slop before it reaches a customer. We care a great deal about the difference. Craft, not sheer output, is our core value."
- WHAT WE MIGHT HAND YOU: list of examples (real examples of shape of work). Each example is a bullet? It's a paragraph with quotes. We can treat as list of duties/responsibilities.
- WHO YOU PROBABLY ARE: bullet list of traits.
- WHO YOU'RE PROBABLY NOT: bullet list.
- HOW YOU'LL GROW: description.
- LOGISTICS: Full-time, in our New York office, five days a week. $130,000 to $160,000 base, plus meaningful equity. Health and dental coverage. A 401(k) plan. A stipend for your laptop and setup. This is a startup and a serious one. It is not a lifestyle job.
- HOW TO APPLY: instructions (should be removed as per rule: remove application instructions). So we drop that.
Thus sections we can include:
About the role (maybe combine first paragraph and THE ROLE? Could be separate sections: About the role, Responsibilities (the WHAT WE MIGHT HAND YOU), Requirements/Qualifications/Skills (WHO YOU PROBABLY ARE, WHO YOU'RE PROBABLY NOT maybe as Requirements), Benefits, Pay, Schedule.
We need to decide headings: About the role, Responsibilities, Requirements, Qualifications, Skills, Benefits, Pay, Schedule.
We should only include sections with real content.
Let's map:
About the role: we have introductory description (first paragraph). Could be used.
Responsibilities: the WHAT WE MIGHT HAND YOU examples (list). Also maybe THE ROLE description (solved open-ended problem). Could be responsibilities.
Requirements: maybe WHO YOU PROBABLY ARE (traits) and WHO YOU'RE PROBABLY NOT (negative traits) could be requirements/qualifications.
Qualifications: maybe not separate; we could combine.
Skills: maybe technical adventurous, systems thinker, etc.
Benefits: health and dental coverage, 401(k) plan, stipend for laptop/setup.
Pay: $130,000 to $160,000 base, plus meaningful equity.
Schedule: Full-time, in our New York office, five days a week.
We must not include placeholder like "commensurate with experience". Not present.
We must not include boilerplate like EEO etc. Not present.
We must not include application instructions (HOW TO APPLY). Remove.
Now produce HTML.
We need to use for section headings. Use
for section headings. Use - for any list of duties/requirements/benefits. Use
for prose.
We must not repeat job title as heading.
We must not put Job ID/requisition numbers as headings.
We must output only HTML fragment.
Let's craft.
Section About the role:
About the role
...
Responsibilities: Responsibilities
- ... each example
We need to include the examples from WHAT WE MIGHT HAND YOU. They are four bullet-like paragraphs each starting with a quoted scenario. We'll turn each into - .
Also maybe include THE ROLE description as responsibility? Could be separate but we can incorporate.
But we must not duplicate content. We'll include THE ROLE description as part of responsibilities maybe as a paragraph before list? But rule: Use
- for any list of duties/requirements/benefits, and
for prose. So we can have prose paragraph for THE ROLE, then list for examples.
Thus Responsibilities section:
We hand you an open-ended problem and you return it solved. Not analyzed, not framed as a deck, not handed back as a list of options. Solved. Don't tell us the answer, do the answer. That one line is most of the job. The work is whatever the company needs most that week, and it is always high-trust and high-stakes. You get into every corner of a process, you talk to the people involved, you research with AI and with your own judgment, and you find the shortest path that actually works. You build systems that we then scale, so we have to trust them, which means we have to trust you. You use AI heavily, and you never ship its output unread. You reach for the tools on instinct, and you have the taste to catch the slop before it reaches a customer. We care a great deal about the difference. Craft, not sheer output, is our core value.
then - ... example1
... etc.
Now Requirements: maybe combine WHO YOU PROBABLY ARE and WHO YOU'RE PROBABLY NOT as list? Could be separate sections Requirements and Qualifications. But we need to decide.
We could have Requirements: list of traits (WHO YOU PROBABLY ARE). Qualifications: maybe none specific. Skills: maybe technical adventurous, systems thinker, etc. But we have overlapping.
Better: Use Requirements for WHO YOU PROBABLY ARE (positive traits). Use Qualifications for WHO YOU'RE PROBABLY NOT (negative traits) maybe as "not suitable". But that seems odd.
Alternatively, we could have a single Requirements section that includes both positive and negative as list items (maybe separate). But rule: Use - for any list of duties/requirements/benefits. So we can put all traits in a list.
Thus we could have Requirements section with list of positive traits and negative traits as separate items? Might be confusing.
Maybe we split: Requirements (positive traits), Skills (technical adventurous, systems thinker, etc). But the positive traits already include systems thinker, technically adventurous, someone who does not need managing, polished in the room, dogged. Those are skills/qualities.
Thus we could treat Requirements as those traits. Skills maybe not needed separately.
But we need to follow instruction: Prefer a few substantive sections over many thin ones. So maybe we combine Requirements and Qualifications into one section called Requirements (or Qualifications). But we must use headings exactly as given: About the role, Responsibilities, Requirements, Qualifications, Skills, Benefits, Pay, Schedule. We can omit sections if no real content. So we can include only those with content.
Thus we need to decide which sections have content.
- About the role: yes.
- Responsibilities: yes.
- Requirements: maybe we have WHO YOU PROBABLY ARE (positive traits) as requirements.
- Qualifications: maybe we have WHO YOU'RE PROBABLY NOT as qualifications? Not ideal but could be used as "qualifications you likely do NOT have". But that seems weird.
Better: Use Requirements for WHO YOU PROBABLY ARE, Skills for the same? Actually the traits are skills/qualities. Could put them under Skills.
But we need to avoid thin sections. Perhaps we combine Requirements and Qualifications into one section called Requirements (or Qualifications) but we must use the exact heading. If we combine, we could put both lists under Requirements heading and omit Qualifications heading. That's allowed: we only include sections when posting has real, specific content for it. So we can include Requirements and omit Qualifications if we think Qualifications has no distinct content beyond Requirements.
Similarly, Skills could be omitted if we think traits covered under Requirements.
Thus we will have sections: About the role, Responsibilities, Requirements, Benefits, Pay, Schedule.
Check if we have content for Benefits: health and dental coverage, 401(k) plan, stipend for laptop/setup. Yes.
Pay: $130k-$160k base plus meaningful equity.
Schedule: Full-time, in our New York office, five days a week.
Now we need to ensure we don't include any boilerplate like "This is a startup and a serious one. It is not a lifestyle job." That's substantive? Could be part of Benefits or maybe a note. Could be included in Benefits as a note? It's not a benefit but a statement about the job. Could be placed in About the role or Responsibilities? Might be better to include in About the role as a closing sentence. It's substantive about company culture. We'll include it in About the role paragraph.
Now craft HTML.
We need to escape any HTML special characters? Not needed.
Let's write.
About the role paragraph: combine first paragraph and THE ROLE? Actually we already used THE ROLE as responsibilities prose. So About the role paragraph should be the initial description: "JotPsych makes software for behavioral health clinicians. Our scribe has drafted more than 3.1 million patient notes and cuts administrative time by about 90%, and we are expanding from the note into the whole practice: billing, audit, prior authorization, e-prescribing. We are a small team in New York, and every non-engineering hire starts as Chief of Staff. You take on whatever the company needs most, week to week: a sales problem, an operations problem, a product problem, the work that sits between the founders and everything that is not getting done. Nothing is off the table. Now the tooling makes it possible. With real agency and a sharp command of the tools (Claude now, maybe something else in three months), one person can reach across nearly every domain: marketing, sales, analytics, product, strategy, partnerships, operations, etc. You not only get to do everything; you can. It is the rare mid-career role where you take it all on, find the part you are best at, and grow into the executive seat that fits. We care a great deal about the difference. Craft, not sheer output, is our core value. This is a startup and a serious one. It is not a lifestyle job."
We might have duplicated core value sentence; but it's okay.
Now Responsibilities: prose from THE ROLE (the open-ended problem paragraph). Then list of examples.
Examples:
1. "Tens of thousands of potential customers visit JotPsych.com every week. We need to develop a best-in-class approach to attribution, tracking, and customer journey mapping." You map how visitors actually move
for prose. We must not repeat job title as heading. We must not put Job ID/requisition numbers as headings. We must output only HTML fragment. Let's craft. Section About the role:
About the role
...
Responsibilities:Responsibilities
- ... each example
- for any list of duties/requirements/benefits, and
for prose. So we can have prose paragraph for THE ROLE, then list for examples. Thus Responsibilities section:
We hand you an open-ended problem and you return it solved. Not analyzed, not framed as a deck, not handed back as a list of options. Solved. Don't tell us the answer, do the answer. That one line is most of the job. The work is whatever the company needs most that week, and it is always high-trust and high-stakes. You get into every corner of a process, you talk to the people involved, you research with AI and with your own judgment, and you find the shortest path that actually works. You build systems that we then scale, so we have to trust them, which means we have to trust you. You use AI heavily, and you never ship its output unread. You reach for the tools on instinct, and you have the taste to catch the slop before it reaches a customer. We care a great deal about the difference. Craft, not sheer output, is our core value.
then- ... example1 ... etc. Now Requirements: maybe combine WHO YOU PROBABLY ARE and WHO YOU'RE PROBABLY NOT as list? Could be separate sections Requirements and Qualifications. But we need to decide. We could have Requirements: list of traits (WHO YOU PROBABLY ARE). Qualifications: maybe none specific. Skills: maybe technical adventurous, systems thinker, etc. But we have overlapping. Better: Use Requirements for WHO YOU PROBABLY ARE (positive traits). Use Qualifications for WHO YOU'RE PROBABLY NOT (negative traits) maybe as "not suitable". But that seems odd. Alternatively, we could have a single Requirements section that includes both positive and negative as list items (maybe separate). But rule: Use
- for any list of duties/requirements/benefits. So we can put all traits in a list. Thus we could have Requirements section with list of positive traits and negative traits as separate items? Might be confusing. Maybe we split: Requirements (positive traits), Skills (technical adventurous, systems thinker, etc). But the positive traits already include systems thinker, technically adventurous, someone who does not need managing, polished in the room, dogged. Those are skills/qualities. Thus we could treat Requirements as those traits. Skills maybe not needed separately. But we need to follow instruction: Prefer a few substantive sections over many thin ones. So maybe we combine Requirements and Qualifications into one section called Requirements (or Qualifications). But we must use headings exactly as given: About the role, Responsibilities, Requirements, Qualifications, Skills, Benefits, Pay, Schedule. We can omit sections if no real content. So we can include only those with content. Thus we need to decide which sections have content. - About the role: yes. - Responsibilities: yes. - Requirements: maybe we have WHO YOU PROBABLY ARE (positive traits) as requirements. - Qualifications: maybe we have WHO YOU'RE PROBABLY NOT as qualifications? Not ideal but could be used as "qualifications you likely do NOT have". But that seems weird. Better: Use Requirements for WHO YOU PROBABLY ARE, Skills for the same? Actually the traits are skills/qualities. Could put them under Skills. But we need to avoid thin sections. Perhaps we combine Requirements and Qualifications into one section called Requirements (or Qualifications) but we must use the exact heading. If we combine, we could put both lists under Requirements heading and omit Qualifications heading. That's allowed: we only include sections when posting has real, specific content for it. So we can include Requirements and omit Qualifications if we think Qualifications has no distinct content beyond Requirements. Similarly, Skills could be omitted if we think traits covered under Requirements. Thus we will have sections: About the role, Responsibilities, Requirements, Benefits, Pay, Schedule. Check if we have content for Benefits: health and dental coverage, 401(k) plan, stipend for laptop/setup. Yes. Pay: $130k-$160k base plus meaningful equity. Schedule: Full-time, in our New York office, five days a week. Now we need to ensure we don't include any boilerplate like "This is a startup and a serious one. It is not a lifestyle job." That's substantive? Could be part of Benefits or maybe a note. Could be included in Benefits as a note? It's not a benefit but a statement about the job. Could be placed in About the role or Responsibilities? Might be better to include in About the role as a closing sentence. It's substantive about company culture. We'll include it in About the role paragraph. Now craft HTML. We need to escape any HTML special characters? Not needed. Let's write. About the role paragraph: combine first paragraph and THE ROLE? Actually we already used THE ROLE as responsibilities prose. So About the role paragraph should be the initial description: "JotPsych makes software for behavioral health clinicians. Our scribe has drafted more than 3.1 million patient notes and cuts administrative time by about 90%, and we are expanding from the note into the whole practice: billing, audit, prior authorization, e-prescribing. We are a small team in New York, and every non-engineering hire starts as Chief of Staff. You take on whatever the company needs most, week to week: a sales problem, an operations problem, a product problem, the work that sits between the founders and everything that is not getting done. Nothing is off the table. Now the tooling makes it possible. With real agency and a sharp command of the tools (Claude now, maybe something else in three months), one person can reach across nearly every domain: marketing, sales, analytics, product, strategy, partnerships, operations, etc. You not only get to do everything; you can. It is the rare mid-career role where you take it all on, find the part you are best at, and grow into the executive seat that fits. We care a great deal about the difference. Craft, not sheer output, is our core value. This is a startup and a serious one. It is not a lifestyle job." We might have duplicated core value sentence; but it's okay. Now Responsibilities: prose from THE ROLE (the open-ended problem paragraph). Then list of examples. Examples: 1. "Tens of thousands of potential customers visit JotPsych.com every week. We need to develop a best-in-class approach to attribution, tracking, and customer journey mapping." You map how visitors actually move