Head of Operations (Remote, Houston)

We need to output HTML fragment with headings

for sections: About the role, Responsibilities, Requirements, Qualifications, Skills, Benefits, Pay, Schedule. Only include sections that have real specific content. We need to parse the posting. The posting includes: - Title: Blacksmith Agency Operations Full time Remote (USA or Canada) - About The Role: paragraph describing role. - What You Own: bullet-like list? It's paragraphs describing responsibilities. - What You Need: bullet-like list of requirements. - Process: description of interview process. - How To Apply: instructions (should be removed as application instructions per rule: remove application instructions). So we should drop that. We need to map content to sections. We have "About The Role" -> heading About the role. Responsibilities: likely from "What You Own" (they own department leads, meeting rhythm, profit, commercial conversations, building operators, decisions). Also maybe "As Head of Operations you run the company day to day. Sales, recruiting, delivery and marketing all report to this seat." That's responsibilities. Requirements: from "What You Need" (more than one function reporting to you, experience scaling team, profit number you personally carried, negotiation experience, communicator, plus the "Please do not apply if ..." which are disqualifiers; we should keep them as requirements? They are constraints; we can include as part of requirements. Qualifications: maybe not distinct; could combine with Requirements. But we need to decide if we have separate content for Qualifications. The posting doesn't have a separate qualifications section besides what you need. Could treat "What You Need" as Requirements/Qualifications combined. But we need to follow instruction: include a section only when posting has real specific content for it. We could have Requirements and maybe Qualifications if we can split. But safer to have one section: Requirements (or Qualifications). Which heading to use? The list includes both Requirements and Qualifications as possible headings. We need to decide which fits content. The "What You Need" includes experience, skills, etc. That's more like Requirements. Qualifications could be similar. Since we have no separate qualifications, we could omit Qualifications section. Skills: maybe we can extract communication, negotiation, leadership, etc. But those are already in What You Need. Could create Skills section but might be thin. Better to combine into Requirements. Benefits, Pay, Schedule: posting does not mention benefits, pay, schedule. So we should not include those sections. Process: maybe we could include a section like "Process" but not in allowed headings list. Allowed headings are only those listed. So we cannot add a custom heading like Process. We could fold process into About the role or Responsibilities? Probably not. The instruction says use

for section headings (e.g. About the role, Responsibilities, Requirements, Qualifications, Skills, Benefits, Pay, Schedule). It doesn't forbid other headings? It says use

for section headings (e.g. ...). Likely we should only use those headings. So we should not add a Process heading. We could incorporate process into About the role or Responsibilities? Might be okay to add a brief paragraph under About the role describing process. But the rule says "Prefer a few substantive sections over many thin ones." So we could have About the role, Responsibilities, Requirements. That's three sections. We need to preserve all substantive information, not invent or summarize away detail. So we need to include details from What You Own, What You Need, Process, How To Apply (but we drop application instructions). Also we need to include the "Three conversations, then a decision..." process details. Where to put? Could be part of About the role? Might be okay to add a paragraph under About the role describing the hiring process. However, the rule says "Do NOT repeat the job title as a heading (the page already shows it) and do NOT put Job ID / requisition numbers as headings — fold minor metadata into a short

or drop it." Process is not metadata; it's part of the posting. Could be its own section but not allowed heading. Could we treat it as part of Responsibilities? Not really. Could we treat it as part of About the role? The About the role currently describes the role; process is about hiring. Might be okay to add a separate section with heading "Process" but that's not in the allowed list. The instruction says use

for section headings (e.g. About the role, Responsibilities, Requirements, Qualifications, Skills, Benefits, Pay, Schedule). The "e.g." suggests those are examples, not an exhaustive list? It says "use

for section headings (e.g. About the role, Responsibilities, Requirements, Qualifications, Skills, Benefits, Pay, Schedule)." It might imply those are the allowed headings. Usually in such tasks, they want you to use only those headings. So we should not add Process heading. Thus we need to embed process details somewhere else, maybe as a paragraph under About the role or Responsibilities. Since it's about the hiring process, maybe under About the role (makes sense as part of the role description? Not exactly). But we can add a paragraph under About the role that mentions the interview process. That would preserve the info. Similarly, "How To Apply" instructions should be removed per rule: remove application instructions. So we drop that. Now we need to format content. We need to use

for each section heading. Inside sections, use

for prose,

• for any list of duties/requirements/benefits. We need to decide what constitutes a list. The "What You Own" and "What You Need" are series of statements; we can turn them into
  • . We need to preserve all substantive information: not lose any detail. Let's extract the content. About The Role paragraph: "Blacksmith Agency is a remote agency building websites and running paid and organic programs for US clients. As Head of Operations you run the company day to day. Sales, recruiting, delivery and marketing all report to this seat. Today that work sits on the founder's desk, which is the whole reason it is open. This is the integrator seat. If you run on EOS you know the shape already: the founder is the visionary and owns where the business goes, and you are the one who makes it happen, on a date, with the people we actually have. Each department lead knows their function better than you will. You are accountable for all four of them together, and for the profit number underneath." That's the about role. What You Own (responsibilities): - Four department leads: their numbers, their development, their reviews, and the call when one of them is not going to get there. - The week. The meeting rhythm, this quarter's priorities, and what gets cut when two of them collide. - Profit, measured on attainment rather than activity. Margin on delivery, the real cost of a hire, which business we take and which we turn down. - The commercial conversations: client contracts and the redlines that come back on them, vendor terms, and what we will and will not agree to. - Building strong operators into actual leaders. Several of them have never been coached as one. - The decisions that wait on the founder today, made the same day instead. We need to keep each bullet as a list item. What You Need (requirements): - More than one function reporting to you, where their numbers, their hiring and the decision when a leader was not working out were yours to make. - Running a large team inside a single function is a different job. - You joined a company at one size and left it three or four times bigger. Forty people to a hundred and forty is the shape we mean. Expect to be asked for the headcount the day you arrived, the day you left, and what you put in place to make the second number survivable. - A profit number you personally carried. Margin, not revenue somebody else sold and not a budget you were handed to spend. - Real negotiation experience, on contracts and with people. This seat sits across the table often. - A communicator. Most of what this job is, is being clear with four leaders and one founder about what is true right now. - Please do not apply if Nobody has ever reported to you, or you have never owned someone's review or had to performance-manage a leader. - You have only ever led inside one function. - The company you point to for growth was already large when you arrived. - What you want is the visionary seat. That one is taken, and this is explicitly the other one. - None of these are preferences we bend on. They are how we screen, so applying anyway costs you an hour and gets you a no. We need to keep all that. Process details: - Three conversations, then a decision. - A thirty minute screen with our recruiter, a first round with the founder this seat reports to, and a final. - No take-home project and no panel interview. We need to embed this somewhere. Perhaps as a paragraph under About the role after the description. Now we need to output HTML fragment. Structure:

    About the role

    Blacksmith Agency is a remote agency building websites and running paid and organic programs for US clients. As Head of Operations you run the company day to day. Sales, recruiting, delivery and marketing all report to this seat. Today that work sits on the founder's desk, which is the whole reason it is open. This is the integrator seat. If you run on EOS you know the shape already: the founder is the visionary and owns where the business goes, and you are the one who makes it happen, on a date, with the people we actually have. Each department lead knows their function better than you will. You are accountable for all four of them together, and for the profit number underneath.

    The hiring process consists of three conversations: a thirty‑minute screen with our recruiter, a first round with the founder (to whom this seat reports), and a final interview. There is no take‑home project and no panel interview.

    Responsibilities

    • Four department leads: their numbers, their development, their reviews, and the call when one of them is not going to get there.
    • The week: the meeting rhythm, this quarter's priorities, and what gets cut when two of them collide.
    • Profit, measured on attainment rather than activity; margin on delivery, the real cost of a hire, which business we take and which we turn down.
    • The commercial conversations: client contracts and the redlines that come back on them, vendor terms, and what we will and will not agree to.
    • Building strong operators into actual leaders — several of them have never been coached as one.
    • The decisions that wait on the founder today, made the same day instead.

    Requirements

    • More than one function reporting to you, where their numbers, their hiring and the decision when a leader was not working out were yours to make.
    • Running a large team inside a single function is a different job.
    • You joined a company at one size and left it three or four times bigger (e.g., forty to a hundred‑forty); you should be prepared to discuss the headcount on your first and last day and what you put in place to make the larger headcount survivable.
    • A profit number you personally carried — margin, not revenue somebody else sold and not a budget you were handed to spend.
    • Real negotiation experience, on contracts and with people; this seat sits across the table often.
    • Strong communication skills: being clear with four leaders and one founder about what is true right now.
    • Please do not apply if nobody has ever reported to you, or you have never owned someone's review or had to performance‑manage a leader.
    • You have only ever led inside one function.
    • The company you point to for growth was already large when you arrived.
    • What you want is the