APS Selection Criteria Template: Structure, STAR Format and Examples
Panels cannot award marks based on capability they cannot read on the page. A response that contains the right experience but presents it without structure will consistently score below a response that is clearly organised and evidence-dense — even if the underlying experience is comparable.
A template does not write the response for you. It provides the structural skeleton that ensures your response contains the elements panels are trained to assess: a specific situation, an individual action, and a verifiable result. Without all three, the response is incomplete in the eyes of the assessment framework.
This article provides a selection criteria template suitable for APS roles, a filled example, and guidance on adapting the template for different classification levels.
For worked examples at APS4, APS5, and APS6 level, see the APS selection criteria example guide.
Generate Your APS Selection Criteria Responses
Paste the job ad and describe your experience.
APS Selection Helper will generate structured STAR responses aligned to APS selection criteria.
You can preview the draft before unlocking the full version.
Generate Selection Criteria Draft →
The Core APS Selection Criteria Template
The following template is based on the STAR framework (Situation, Task, Action, Result) and is appropriate for any APS selection criteria response at APS4 to EL1 level.
[SITUATION]
In my role as [job title] at [organisation/agency], I [brief description of context — what was happening, what the challenge or requirement was]. [Add any relevant constraint: deadline, complexity, competing demands, or stakeholder involvement.]
[TASK]
I was responsible for [your specific responsibility within this situation — not the team's responsibility, your responsibility].
[ACTION]
I [describe the specific actions you took, in sequence]. [Include decisions made, stakeholders engaged, risks identified or managed, and any judgment exercised.] [If relevant, explain why you chose this approach over alternatives.]
[RESULT]
As a result, [describe what happened]. [Quantify the outcome wherever possible: deadline met, number of stakeholders reached, percentage improvement, dollar saving, named endorsement, process adopted.] [If there was a secondary or longer-term impact, note it briefly.]
Keep the situation and task sections concise. Panels do not need background. They need evidence. Allocate approximately 45–50% of your available words to the action section and 15–20% to the result.
For guidance on word allocation by response length, see APS selection criteria word limits.
STAR Template — Compact Version
For shorter word limits (250–350 words), use this compressed template:
[SITUATION + TASK in one sentence or two]
As [job title] at [organisation], I was responsible for [task] when [situation].
[ACTION — 3–5 sentences]
I [first action]. I identified that [key judgment or decision]. I [subsequent action]. This involved [any relevant complexity or stakeholder dimension].
[RESULT — 2–3 sentences]
[Named outcome]. [Quantified impact where possible.] [Secondary impact if space allows.]
Filled Template Example (APS5 Level, ~320 Words)
Criterion: Works collaboratively
As APS5 Program Officer in the Department of Employment and Workplace Relations, I was assigned coordination responsibility for a grant assessment process involving eight applications and a four-person panel drawn from two separate agencies. Three weeks before the assessment deadline, one agency advised that their panel member would be unavailable for the scheduled assessment day due to an internal emergency.
I was responsible for ensuring the assessment proceeded on schedule without compromising the integrity of the process or the participating agency's involvement.
I contacted the unavailable panel member to understand the timeline and confirmed that a five-day delay was possible from their side. I reviewed the assessment guidelines and identified a provision allowing for written assessments to be submitted in place of in-person participation under defined conditions. I drafted a procedure note for my EL1 setting out the provisions, the rationale, and the steps required to implement it. With clearance obtained, I sent the application materials and assessment criteria to the panel member with a structured template, and incorporated their written assessments into the consolidated panel record ahead of the reconvened session.
The assessment was completed within two business days of the originally scheduled date. All four panel members' assessments were incorporated into the final recommendation. The replacement panel member provided written feedback that the structured template had made remote participation straightforward. My EL1 noted in the post-round debrief that the procedure note would be retained for future panel composition issues.
Why this example works:
- Named role, department, and program context
- Specific complexity: panel composition failure mid-process
- Individual judgment: identified the procedural provision and designed the solution
- Actions are sequenced and attributed individually
- Result is specific: deadline met within two business days, all panel input incorporated
- Institutional benefit noted: procedure note retained for future use
How to Adapt the Template for APS4, APS5, and APS6
The STAR template is the same across classifications. What changes is the complexity of what you describe within each section.
| Template Element |
APS 4 |
APS 5 |
APS 6 |
| Situation |
Defined task with a procedural challenge |
Coordination challenge or competing demands |
Structural gap, unresolved risk, or cross-agency complexity |
| Task |
Completing assigned work correctly |
Managing a defined deliverable independently |
Shaping how the deliverable is produced |
| Action |
Followed process, escalated correctly, documented outcome |
Identified problem, proposed solution, coordinated stakeholders |
Identified systemic issue, designed response, influenced senior stakeholders |
| Result |
Specific operational outcome |
Measurable output with individual attribution |
Measurable impact at program, branch, or organisational level |
APS 4 adaptation:
Keep the situation simple. The complexity at APS4 is procedural — identifying the right step, escalating correctly, and documenting the outcome. Do not overstate autonomy or strategic contribution.
Example situation: a client case with an unresolved discrepancy requiring internal coordination. Your action: identified the root cause, obtained the correct information, submitted the case for resolution. Your result: case resolved within the service standard, approach documented for the team.
APS 5 adaptation:
The situation should involve some genuine coordination challenge — two parties with conflicting positions, a deliverable at risk, or an ambiguity requiring judgment. Your action should show that you identified what needed to be done, not just that you completed what was assigned.
APS 6 adaptation:
The situation should involve complexity beyond your immediate team — cross-agency engagement, unresolved risk, or a structural problem no one had addressed. Your action should demonstrate that you diagnosed the problem, proposed a response, and managed the execution with limited direction. See APS 6 selection criteria examples for full worked examples at this level.
Weak vs Strong: What the Template Produces
Applying the template correctly produces a fundamentally different response from one written without structure. The contrast below uses the same criterion at APS5 level.
Weak Response
I have strong experience working collaboratively across teams. I am a good communicator who adapts well to different stakeholders and I always ensure the team is kept informed. I work well under pressure and have contributed to many successful projects over my career.
Why this does not score: There is no named situation, no specific action, and no result. This is a character description. The template would ask: what was the situation? What were you responsible for? What did you do specifically? What was the outcome? None of those questions are answered here.
Strong Response (same criterion, using the template)
As APS5 Program Officer in the Department of Employment and Workplace Relations, I coordinated input from three internal teams for a time-sensitive ministerial brief when one team's data lead went on unplanned leave midway through the process. I contacted the team's acting manager, agreed a revised submission pathway, and consolidated the incoming data against a reconciliation checklist I prepared. The brief was completed on schedule with all three team inputs incorporated. My EL1 noted the handover had been managed without any data gaps.
What changed: Named role, named agency, specific constraint, individual actions described in sequence, verifiable result. Each element of the template is present. A panel member can assess this against the criterion directly.
Common Mistakes When Using a Template
Leaving structural labels in the final draft. The template is a drafting tool, not a formatting instruction. Remove all labels (Situation:, Task:, Action:, Result:) from your final submission unless the agency has explicitly asked for labelled sections.
Treating the template as a word-for-word fill-in. The template sets the structure; the specific evidence must come from your experience. Responses that follow the template but contain vague or general descriptions will not score.
Prioritising even word distribution. Applicants sometimes divide their word count equally across all four sections. This is counterproductive. The action section requires the most words because it contains the most scoring material. The situation section requires the fewest.
Using the same template response for multiple criteria. Each criterion requires a distinct example. Reusing the same situation — even with different framing — is visible to panels reading all your criteria together and signals limited breadth of relevant experience.
If You're Struggling to Structure Your Response
Structuring APS responses clearly and concisely is often harder than it looks.
APS Selection Helper generates structured drafts aligned to your job ad and experience. You remain in control of editing before submission.
Generate Selection Criteria Draft →
Frequently Asked Questions
Do I have to use the STAR template exactly?
No. STAR is a structural guide, not a mandatory format. What matters is that your response contains a named situation, your individual action, and a verifiable result. If you can achieve this without following the template step by step, the panel will not penalise you. The template is most useful for applicants who find it difficult to organise their experience into a coherent structure.
Can I use headings in my selection criteria response?
Most agencies do not require headings in individual criterion responses. In a combined statement of claims addressing multiple criteria, brief headings (e.g. the criterion name) can help the panel navigate the document. Follow any formatting instructions in the position description. If none are given, a flowing narrative with strong STAR structure is generally more readable than a heavily formatted document.
How do I know if my template response is specific enough?
Ask yourself: could this response describe a different person in a different job at a different organisation? If yes, it is too general. A well-completed template response should be specific enough that only you could have written it — because it names your role, your organisation, your specific action, and your specific result.
Is it better to write one strong example or two shorter ones?
One strong, fully developed example is usually more effective than two brief ones within the same word limit. A second example can add value if it demonstrates a genuinely different aspect of the criterion and you have the word count to develop it adequately. If the second example is only two to three sentences, prioritise strengthening the first one instead.