Interview scorecard template

AI-Powered Concierge Chatbot Designer interview scorecard

Evaluate AI-Powered Concierge Chatbot Designer candidates across 4 weighted areas: portfolio, craft and rationale, feedback and iteration, and working with the brief. Portfolio leads at 35%, so ask for shipped bots: dialogue flow diagrams in Voiceflow or Botpress, sample prompt libraries, transcripts, and containment or booking conversion numbers per assistant they designed. Use the rubric to compare role-specific evidence consistently.

See AI scoring
design visual communicationconcierge automationconversation designdialogue flowsprompt engineering
TL;DR
For portfolio, look for evidence the candidate walks through two or three live concierge assistants with flow artefacts, persona docs, and containment or upsell figures they personally moved. For craft and rationale, look for evidence the candidate explains word-level choices, fallback ladders, and escalation thresholds, tying each to guest frustration signals rather than generic best practice. 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

Portfolio

35% weight

Ask for shipped bots: dialogue flow diagrams in Voiceflow or Botpress, sample prompt libraries, transcripts, and containment or booking conversion numbers per assistant they designed.

Evidence to listen for

  • Work exists and can be looked at, not just described
  • States what they made versus what the team or a template made
  • Shows range rather than one repeated style
  • Can walk through a piece from brief to final

Five-point scoring guide

1
Poor

No portfolio, or work that is unattributable or clearly templated.

2
Needs Improvement

Thin portfolio; unclear what they personally made.

3
Satisfactory

Real work with adequate range; contribution mostly clear.

4
Very Good

Strong varied portfolio with clear personal ownership.

5
Excellent

Walks through two or three live concierge assistants with flow artefacts, persona docs, and containment or upsell figures they personally moved.

02
Evaluation factor

Craft and rationale

25% weight

Probe how they write utterances and fallbacks: tone guides, error recovery paths, handoff rules to human staff, and grounding choices for RAG or retrieval sources.

Evidence to listen for

  • Explains why a layout, type choice, or colour decision serves the brief
  • Knows typography and hierarchy as craft, not decoration
  • Works to a brand system without either breaking it or hiding behind it
  • Names the tools they are genuinely fast in

Five-point scoring guide

1
Poor

Cannot explain any decision; work is arbitrary.

2
Needs Improvement

Talks in taste terms only; no link between choice and brief.

3
Satisfactory

Sound craft with some ability to justify decisions.

4
Very Good

Articulate about why each choice serves the brief.

5
Excellent

Explains word-level choices, fallback ladders, and escalation thresholds, tying each to guest frustration signals rather than generic best practice.

03
Evaluation factor

Feedback and iteration

25% weight

Test their loop from transcript review: how they mine misunderstood intents, run A/B variants on prompts, and version changes without regressing tested flows.

Evidence to listen for

  • Takes critique without treating it as an attack
  • Distinguishes a subjective preference from a real problem, and says so politely
  • Iterates fast rather than defending version one
  • Delivers files correctly and on time

Five-point scoring guide

1
Poor

Defensive about critique; will not revise.

2
Needs Improvement

Accepts feedback passively; iterations do not improve the work.

3
Satisfactory

Revises willingly; struggles to push back on weak feedback.

4
Very Good

Iterates quickly and can argue for the work when the feedback is wrong.

5
Excellent

Describes a specific transcript audit that surfaced a failing intent, the rewrite made, and the measured drop in escalations afterwards.

04
Evaluation factor

Working with the brief

15% weight

Judge how they translate a hotel, clinic, or property brief into scope: which requests the bot handles, which stay human, PII limits, and multilingual needs.

Evidence to listen for

  • Asks about audience and goal before opening the design tool
  • Works with marketing, product, or clients rather than in isolation
  • Flags an impossible brief early
  • Hands over files and assets others can actually use

Five-point scoring guide

1
Poor

Designs in isolation; ignores the brief's purpose.

2
Needs Improvement

Starts designing before understanding the goal.

3
Satisfactory

Asks the right questions when prompted.

4
Very Good

Interrogates the brief up front and hands over cleanly.

5
Excellent

Pushes back on unrealistic automation scope, names data and compliance constraints early, and agrees success metrics with the operations owner.

Evidence-led prompts

Interview questions for a AI-Powered Concierge Chatbot Designer

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

  1. 01

    Can you describe your experience designing AI-powered assistant systems?

  2. 02

    Can you discuss a project where you implemented a concierge assistant?

  3. 03

    What tools and platforms are you proficient in for building assistant interfaces?

  4. 04

    How do you handle multi-turn conversations in your designs?

  5. 05

    What strategies do you use to personalise the experience?

See the complete AI-Powered Concierge Chatbot Designer 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