Interview scorecard template

AI-Powered HR Chatbot Designer interview scorecard

Evaluate AI-Powered HR 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 conversational flows: onboarding FAQ bots, leave-balance lookups, benefits enrolment journeys. Look for containment rates, deflected ticket volumes, and the platform used (Dialogflow. Use the rubric to compare role-specific evidence consistently.

See AI scoring
design visual communicationconversation designdialogflow cxhr service deliveryintent taxonomy
TL;DR
For portfolio, look for evidence the candidate walks through two or three live HR bots with named intents, containment or CSAT figures, and honest notes on flows that failed. For craft and rationale, look for evidence the candidate explains persona choices, escalation thresholds, and error-recovery copy with reasons tied to employee trust rather than personal taste. 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 conversational flows: onboarding FAQ bots, leave-balance lookups, benefits enrolment journeys. Look for containment rates, deflected ticket volumes, and the platform used (Dialogflow CX, Rasa, Copilot Studio).

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 HR bots with named intents, containment or CSAT figures, and honest notes on flows that failed.

02
Evaluation factor

Craft and rationale

25% weight

Probe persona and tone decisions, prompt or utterance design, fallback and disambiguation logic, and how they handle sensitive HR topics like grievances or pay disputes.

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 persona choices, escalation thresholds, and error-recovery copy with reasons tied to employee trust rather than personal taste.

03
Evaluation factor

Feedback and iteration

25% weight

Test how they used transcript review, unmatched-utterance logs, and A/B tests of prompt wording to rework flows after launch, plus response to HRBP and works council pushback.

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

Cites specific transcript findings that changed a flow, and describes rewriting copy after legal or HR review without defensiveness.

04
Evaluation factor

Working with the brief

15% weight

Judge intake with HR stakeholders: mapping policy documents and HRIS data (Workday, SuccessFactors) into intents, scoping what the bot must never answer, and agreeing success metrics.

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

Turns vague requests such as "reduce HR emails" into a scoped intent list, escalation rules, and measurable containment targets.

Evidence-led prompts

Interview questions for a AI-Powered HR Chatbot Designer

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

  1. 01

    Describe a time you implemented an AI-powered chatbot for an HR department.

  2. 02

    What experience do you have integrating chatbots with HR systems such as Workday or ADP?

  3. 03

    Which AI frameworks and technologies are you most proficient with?

  4. 04

    How do you approach user experience design for conversational interfaces?

  5. 05

    How do you maintain a consistent tone of voice in chatbot responses?

See the complete AI-Powered HR 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