Interview scorecard template

Agile Coach interview scorecard

Evaluate Agile Coach candidates across 4 weighted areas: subject and technical command, how they actually teach, group management and safeguarding, and progress and communication. Subject and technical command leads at 30%, so check command of Scrum, Kanban and scaling frameworks (SAFe, LeSS): WIP limits, flow metrics, story slicing, Definition. Use the rubric to compare role-specific evidence consistently.

See AI scoring
education coachingagile transformationkanbansafescrum
TL;DR
For subject and technical command, look for evidence the candidate explains flow metrics such as cycle time and throughput, names framework trade-offs, and cites where they deliberately broke a framework rule. For how they actually teach, look for evidence the candidate describes a concrete coaching arc for a named team, using questions and experiments rather than mandates, with visible behaviour change over sprints. Apply the written 1–5 anchors to every answer, record the evidence behind each rating, and use the factor weights to reach a consistent overall assessment.
Complete evaluation framework

What to assess and how to score it

Review the evidence signals before interviewing. Then use the anchored descriptions—not instinct alone—to choose the score that best matches each answer.

01
Evaluation factor

Subject and technical command

30% weight

Check command of Scrum, Kanban and scaling frameworks (SAFe, LeSS): WIP limits, flow metrics, story slicing, Definition of Done, plus certifications like CSP-SC, PSM III or ICP-ACC.

Evidence to listen for

  • Knows the material or discipline well beyond the level they teach
  • Holds the qualifications, licences, or certifications required, and they are current
  • Can answer an unexpected question honestly rather than bluffing
  • Keeps learning in their own field

Five-point scoring guide

1
Poor

Knowledge barely ahead of the learners; bluffs when asked something unexpected.

2
Needs Improvement

Adequate on the syllabus only; gaps show under questioning.

3
Satisfactory

Solid command of the material for the level taught.

4
Very Good

Depth well beyond the taught level; comfortable being asked anything.

5
Excellent

Explains flow metrics such as cycle time and throughput, names framework trade-offs, and cites where they deliberately broke a framework rule.

02
Evaluation factor

How they actually teach

30% weight

Probe their actual coaching stance: how they run a liberating structures workshop, coach a Product Owner on backlog refinement, or move a team from prescriptive training to self-organisation.

Evidence to listen for

  • Describes how they teach a specific thing, not their philosophy of teaching
  • Adapts when the first explanation does not land
  • Checks understanding rather than assuming it
  • Differentiates for varying ability within one group

Five-point scoring guide

1
Poor

Only philosophy, no method; one explanation and no plan B.

2
Needs Improvement

Delivers content but cannot adapt when learners are lost.

3
Satisfactory

Sound instruction; differentiation is limited.

4
Very Good

Multiple routes to the same concept, with real checks for understanding.

5
Excellent

Describes a concrete coaching arc for a named team, using questions and experiments rather than mandates, with visible behaviour change over sprints.

03
Evaluation factor

Group management and safeguarding

25% weight

Assess facilitation of hard rooms: heated retrospectives, a dominant tech lead, a manager sitting in on standups, and how they protect psychological safety and surface conflict.

Evidence to listen for

  • Has a concrete approach to a disruptive individual and a whole group losing focus
  • Knows the safeguarding or duty-of-care obligations for this age group and setting
  • Escalates a concern through the right channel
  • Sets boundaries without becoming punitive

Five-point scoring guide

1
Poor

No behaviour strategy; unaware of safeguarding obligations.

2
Needs Improvement

Struggles with disruption; vague on duty of care.

3
Satisfactory

Manages a normal group; less confident with serious disruption.

4
Very Good

Confident group management with clear safeguarding awareness.

5
Excellent

Recounts a specific tense retro or dysfunctional team, names the facilitation technique used, and describes how the conflict was made discussable.

04
Evaluation factor

Progress and communication

15% weight

Look for evidence of change: escaped defects, lead time, predictability or engagement scores before and after, plus how they reported progress to sponsors and leadership.

Evidence to listen for

  • Measures whether learners actually improved, not just attended
  • Gives feedback that changes what someone does next
  • Communicates with parents, clients, or managers about difficult progress honestly
  • Records progress usefully

Five-point scoring guide

1
Poor

No sense of whether anyone improved.

2
Needs Improvement

Tracks attendance rather than progress; avoids hard conversations.

3
Satisfactory

Monitors progress; feedback is general.

4
Very Good

Measures progress concretely and handles difficult conversations well.

5
Excellent

Cites baseline and post-engagement numbers for named teams, and shows how they handed off ownership rather than becoming permanently required.

Evidence-led prompts

Interview questions for a Agile Coach

Use these prompts to surface evidence for the weighted factors above and compare candidates against the same role-specific criteria.

  1. 01

    Can you discuss the most successful team or project you have coached?

  2. 02

    What is your experience training or mentoring teams in these practices?

  3. 03

    Can you describe a time when you helped a team solve a genuinely complex problem?

  4. 04

    What is your approach to coaching, and why do you work that way?

  5. 05

    How do you adjust your approach for teams new to these ways of working?

See the complete Agile Coach question set
Put this rubric to work

Score every candidate against the same standard

Add these weighted factors to Hirevire and let AI evaluate recorded answers against your rubric.

Explore AI Scorecards