Engineering Hiring Rubric
Produce a complete hiring rubric and interview scorecard for evaluating software engineers at a specific role and level. The rubric must be specific enough that two interviewers who have never compared notes will score the same candidate within one level of each other. That requires: explicit behavioral anchors (what does "Strong Hire" look like vs. "Hire" for each competency), calibrated technical questions with written evaluation criteria, and a structured debrief format that surfaces signal rather than recency bias. Include calibration notes to help interviewers recognize and counter common evaluation biases.
Required Inputs
Ask for these if not already provided:
- Role — backend, frontend, fullstack, SRE/platform, data, ML, or mobile engineer
- Level — junior (L3/IC2), mid (L4/IC3), senior (L5/IC4), or staff (L6/IC5); clarify the company's level naming if different
- Team context — what the team builds, team size, and what problems this hire will work on in the first year
- Tech stack — primary languages and frameworks for the technical questions; list the stack explicitly
- Interview format — which rounds are used (phone screen, coding, system design, behavioral, take-home); if not specified, produce a recommended format
Output Format
Engineering Hiring Rubric: [Role] — [Level]
Role: [e.g., Senior Backend Engineer] Level equivalent: [e.g., L5 / IC4 / Senior] Team: [Team name and one-sentence description of what they build] Tech stack: [Languages and frameworks] Interview loop: [List the rounds in order]
1. Role Definition and Level Expectations
What This Role Does
[2–3 sentences describing the scope of work: what systems they'll own, what problems they'll solve, and who they'll work with. Make this specific to the team context provided.]
Level Bar
Define the minimum bar for a Hire recommendation at this level. This is not the ideal candidate description — it is the floor.
| Dimension | [Level] Floor | One Level Below (No Hire) | One Level Above (Stretch) | |-----------|--------------|---------------------------|---------------------------| | Technical scope | [e.g., "Owns a service or major feature area end-to-end with minimal guidance"] | [e.g., "Completes well-defined tasks; needs guidance on scope and approach"] | [e.g., "Leads cross-team technical initiatives; sets technical direction"] | | Problem solving | [e.g., "Breaks ambiguous problems into concrete sub-problems independently"] | [e.g., "Solves defined problems well; struggles with ambiguity"] | [e.g., "Identifies problems others miss; structures organization-level technical challenges"] | | Code quality | [e.g., "Writes production-ready code; anticipates edge cases; reviewable without significant rework"] | [e.g., "Writes working code that requires significant review feedback"] | [e.g., "Sets code quality standards; designs reusable abstractions adopted by others"] | | Communication | [e.g., "Communicates technical decisions clearly to peers and stakeholders"] | [e.g., "Communicates well with direct team; struggles with cross-team or stakeholder comms"] | [e.g., "Drives technical consensus across teams; writes documents others reference"] | | Ownership | [e.g., "Sees work to production; monitors after deploy; follows up on issues proactively"] | [e.g., "Delivers assigned work; escalates issues but doesn't drive them to resolution"] | [e.g., "Owns outcomes across teams; improves team processes and systems beyond their own work"] |
2. Interview Loop Structure
| Round | Format | Duration | Interviewer | Competencies Assessed | |-------|--------|----------|-------------|----------------------| | Phone screen | Video call, technical questions | 45 min | [Hiring manager or senior engineer] | Problem solving, communication, basic technical depth | | Coding interview 1 | Live coding — [platform] | 60 min | [Engineer] | Coding, data structures, code quality | | Coding interview 2 | Live coding — [platform] | 60 min | [Engineer] | Algorithms, debugging, code quality | | System design | Whiteboard / shared doc | 60 min | [Senior/Staff engineer] | System design, scalability, technical communication | | Behavioral | Structured interview | 45 min | [Hiring manager] | Ownership, collaboration, growth mindset | | [Optional] Take-home | Asynchronous project | [X hours] | [Reviewer] | Code quality, thoroughness, real-world problem solving |
Interview coverage matrix: Each competency dimension must be assessed by at least 2 independent interviewers.
| Competency | Phone Screen | Coding 1 | Coding 2 | System Design | Behavioral | |-----------|-------------|---------|---------|--------------|-----------| | Coding | ○ | ● | ● | ○ | | | System design | ○ | | | ● | | | Problem solving | ● | ● | ● | ● | | | Code quality | | ● | ● | | | | Communication | ● | ● | ● | ● | ● | | Ownership | ○ | | | ○ | ● | | Debugging | | ● | ● | | |
● = Primary signal ○ = Secondary signal
3. Coding Interview Guide
Question Selection
Choose 1–2 problems per coding round. Problems should be solvable in 30–40 minutes with the remaining time for discussion and follow-ups. Prefer problems with multiple solution tiers so you can see how far candidates take their thinking.
Problem Template
Problem: [Title]
Prompt (read to candidate):
[Problem statement — be specific. Include constraints (input size, value ranges). Avoid ambiguity that tests problem-reading rather than problem-solving.]
Example:
Given a list of integers representing stock prices at each minute of a trading day, return the maximum profit you could achieve by making exactly one buy and one sell. You may not sell before you buy.
Clarifying questions a strong candidate will ask:
- [e.g., "Can the list be empty?" / "Are all values positive?" / "Can profit be negative — i.e., should we return 0 if no profit is possible?"]
Solution tiers:
| Tier | Approach | Time Complexity | Space Complexity | Signals | |------|----------|-----------------|-----------------|---------| | Baseline | [Brute force — O(n²) nested loop] | O(n²) | O(1) | Can solve the problem; understands correctness | | Expected | [Single pass, tracking min price seen so far] | O(n) | O(1) | Strong problem solver; explains tradeoff | | Strong | [Generalizes to k transactions, or extends to cooldown variant without prompting] | O(n) | O(1) | Staff-level generalization thinking |
Follow-up questions:
- [e.g., "What if you could make at most k trades?"]
- [e.g., "How would you test this function? Write me 3 test cases."]
- [e.g., "Walk me through your code as if you're explaining it in a code review."]
Evaluation rubric for this problem:
| Signal | Strong Hire | Hire | No Hire | |--------|------------|------|---------| | Problem comprehension | Asks 1–2 clarifying questions immediately; identifies edge cases before coding | Understands the problem after 1 prompt; misses 1–2 edge cases | Misunderstands the problem or requires repeated clarification | | Solution quality | O(n) solution; clean code; handles all edge cases | O(n) with hints; code is readable but has minor issues | O(n²) with hints, or correct solution with significant issues | | Code quality | Well-named variables; logical structure; would pass code review | Functional but verbose or inconsistently named | Hard to follow; would require significant review feedback | | Communication | Narrates thinking throughout; explains complexity; self-corrects | Explains solution when asked; answers follow-ups well | Silent during coding; unable to explain their approach | | Follow-ups | Extends solution confidently; identifies further improvements | Handles follow-ups with moderate prompting | Unable to extend or explain tradeoffs |
4. System Design Interview Guide
[Level]-Appropriate Design Scope
At [Level], expect the candidate to:
- [e.g., Senior: "Design a complete s