Interview scorecard template

AI Copywriter interview scorecard

Evaluate AI Copywriter candidates across 4 weighted areas: campaigns that performed, measurement and testing, audience and segmentation, and working with the business. Campaigns that performed leads at 30%, so ask for copy they shipped with LLM assistance: email subject lines, landing pages, ad variants. Probe open rates, CTR, conversion lift, and how. Use the rubric to compare role-specific evidence consistently.

See AI scoring
marketing growthai copywritingbrand voiceprompt engineeringseo content
TL;DR
For campaigns that performed, look for evidence the candidate names specific assets and their numbers, for example a paid social variant lifting CTR from 0.9 to 1.6 percent. For measurement and testing, look for evidence the candidate describes a test where the AI draft lost to the human version, and what they changed in the prompt afterwards. 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

Campaigns that performed

30% weight

Ask for copy they shipped with LLM assistance: email subject lines, landing pages, ad variants. Probe open rates, CTR, conversion lift, and how much output was human-edited.

Evidence to listen for

  • Names campaigns or programmes they ran, with the metric they moved and the baseline it moved from
  • Distinguishes their own work from the team's or the agency's
  • Knows the audience and the offer, not just the channel
  • Can describe a campaign that failed and why

Five-point scoring guide

1
Poor

No numbers; describes activity rather than results.

2
Needs Improvement

Vanity metrics only; attribution to their own work is unclear.

3
Satisfactory

Real campaigns with some numbers; baselines often missing.

4
Very Good

Named campaigns with metric, baseline, and clear personal ownership.

5
Excellent

Names specific assets and their numbers, for example a paid social variant lifting CTR from 0.9 to 1.6 percent.

02
Evaluation factor

Audience and segmentation

25% weight

Test how they adapt tone for distinct segments and channels: enterprise buyers versus self-serve trials, cold email versus lifecycle nurture. Look for brand voice guides or style docs they built.

Evidence to listen for

  • Describes real customer segments and what differs between them, not demographic guesses
  • Has built lifecycle stages, journeys, or nurture logic that reflect actual behaviour
  • Knows where the audience data comes from and its limits
  • Writes for the segment rather than for everyone

Five-point scoring guide

1
Poor

One message for everyone; no segmentation thinking.

2
Needs Improvement

Segments by demographics only; no behavioural insight.

3
Satisfactory

Workable segmentation; lifecycle logic is basic.

4
Very Good

Behaviour-driven segmentation and lifecycle design with evidence behind it.

5
Excellent

Rewrites the same offer for two segments on the spot and explains which objection each version answers.

03
Evaluation factor

Measurement and testing

30% weight

Probe their testing habits: subject line A/B splits, sample sizes, holdout groups, and tools like Optimizely, HubSpot, or Google Ads experiments. Check they detect AI-generated hallucinations before publish.

Evidence to listen for

  • Tests deliberately rather than changing everything at once
  • Understands attribution limits and does not overclaim
  • Knows what sample size and duration a test needed
  • Can name a test whose result contradicted what they expected

Five-point scoring guide

1
Poor

No testing; claims credit for correlation.

2
Needs Improvement

Runs tests but reads them badly; overclaims attribution.

3
Satisfactory

Tests sensibly; rigour drops under deadline pressure.

4
Very Good

Disciplined testing with honest attribution and a result that surprised them.

5
Excellent

Describes a test where the AI draft lost to the human version, and what they changed in the prompt afterwards.

04
Evaluation factor

Working with the business

15% weight

Judge how they work with product marketing, SEO, and legal: intake briefs, review cycles, prompt libraries shared with the team, and handling subject matter expert corrections.

Evidence to listen for

  • Works with sales, product, or operations rather than throwing campaigns over a wall
  • Briefs designers and writers well enough to get usable work
  • Manages agencies or freelancers to a standard
  • Reports results to leadership without spin

Five-point scoring guide

1
Poor

Works in isolation; reports only flattering numbers.

2
Needs Improvement

Limited coordination; briefs are thin.

3
Satisfactory

Coordinates adequately; reporting is honest if basic.

4
Very Good

Strong partner to sales and product; briefs and reports clearly.

5
Excellent

Shows a reusable prompt or brief template adopted by teammates, and cites feedback that reshaped a campaign.

Evidence-led prompts

Interview questions for a AI Copywriter

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

  1. 01

    Can you share examples of content you have produced using these tools?

  2. 02

    Describe a project where these tools were central to the outcome.

  3. 03

    What experience do you have with search performance for this kind of content?

  4. 04

    Describe your process for fact-checking generated content.

  5. 05

    What methods do you use to ensure the originality of generated content?

See the complete AI Copywriter 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