A structured scoring rubric for technical interview rounds: five dimensions with behavioral anchors, a four-point scale, and evidence notes that force specifics.
Use this scorecard for every technical round of {{Role title}} interviews. Fill it in within one hour of the interview, before speaking to any other interviewer, and score only what you observed — not what you inferred about the person. A score without a quoted example in the evidence column is an opinion, not a data point.
Rate each dimension on a 1–4 scale. There is deliberately no middle option: you must decide whether the candidate met the bar. Use the anchors below, and write at least one concrete observation per dimension — what the candidate said or did, not how they made you feel.
| Dimension | What a 3 looks like | What a 1 looks like | Score (1–4) | Evidence notes |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Problem decomposition | Restates the problem, identifies constraints, breaks it into ordered sub-problems before coding. | Jumps straight to code; discovers requirements mid-solution; loses the thread when a constraint changes. | {{Score}} | {{What did they do or say?}} |
| Technical depth | Explains why their approach works, names trade-offs unprompted, answers one level deeper when probed. | Recites patterns without understanding; cannot explain a choice they just made. | {{Score}} | {{What did they do or say?}} |
| Code and solution quality | Working solution with sensible naming, edge-case handling, and a structure a teammate could extend. | Solution does not run or handles only the happy path; structure would need a rewrite. | {{Score}} | {{What did they do or say?}} |
| Verification habits | Tests their own work unprompted: traces an example, checks edge cases, spots their own bug at least once. | Declares the solution done without checking it; misses bugs the interviewer points at directly. | {{Score}} | {{What did they do or say?}} |
| Communication under pressure | Thinks aloud, asks clarifying questions early, incorporates hints without defensiveness. | Goes silent for long stretches, or argues with hints instead of engaging them. | {{Score}} | {{What did they do or say?}} |
| Field | Entry |
|---|---|
| Recommendation (strong no / no / yes / strong yes) | {{Recommendation}} |
| Level assessment relative to the role | {{At level / below / above}} |
| Biggest risk if hired | {{One sentence}} |
| Strongest evidence for hiring | {{One sentence}} |
Not legal advice
This template is provided for general informational purposes only and is not legal advice. Laws differ by jurisdiction and change over time — have a qualified professional review any document before you rely on it.
30 vetted interview questions for an Account Executive, grouped by competency — discovery, pipeline, demos and value selling, negotiation, forecasting, and coachability — with what-good-looks-like guidance.
Thirty vetted interview questions for Backend Engineer candidates covering API design, data modeling, performance, reliability, and collaboration, with strong-answer guidance.
A competency-based rubric for behavioral rounds: five competencies with calibrated anchors, past-behavior evidence rules, and a no-averaging recommendation section.
Twenty-eight vetted interview questions for Brand Designer candidates covering brand strategy, identity craft, systems, collaboration, and feedback, with strong-answer guidance.
A cross-stage evaluation matrix that combines individual scorecards into one weighted decision view, with rules for setting weights before interviews and handling gaps and vetoes.
A touchpoint-by-touchpoint checklist that keeps candidates informed and respected from application to decision, with response-time standards and the failures that cost offers.