Interview scorecard template

Calligraphy Artist interview scorecard

Evaluate Calligraphy Artist candidates across 4 weighted areas: portfolio, craft and rationale, feedback and iteration, and working with the brief. Portfolio leads at 35%, so review their portfolio for range across scripts: copperplate, Spencerian, uncial, modern brush, Arabic or Chinese if claimed. Look for paid commissions, wedding suites, logotypes, and live event. Use the rubric to compare role-specific evidence consistently.

See AI scoring
design visual communicationbrush scriptcalligraphyletteringwedding stationery
TL;DR
For portfolio, look for evidence the candidate shows a deep body of commissioned work across several hands, with client names, print runs, and envelope or signage volumes. For craft and rationale, look for evidence the candidate explains nib, ink, and substrate choices for a specific piece, including bleed tests and why one script suited that text. 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

Review their portfolio for range across scripts: copperplate, Spencerian, uncial, modern brush, Arabic or Chinese if claimed. Look for paid commissions, wedding suites, logotypes, and live event work.

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

Shows a deep body of commissioned work across several hands, with client names, print runs, and envelope or signage volumes.

02
Evaluation factor

Craft and rationale

25% weight

Probe tool command: pointed nib versus broad edge, oblique holder, sumi versus walnut ink, gouache mixing, vellum and handmade paper behaviour, and gilding or embossing technique.

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 nib, ink, and substrate choices for a specific piece, including bleed tests and why one script suited that text.

03
Evaluation factor

Feedback and iteration

25% weight

Test how they handle client redlines on spacing, flourish density, or a misspelled name, and whether they redo pieces at their own cost.

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 real revision rounds, shows before and after layouts, and owns errors with a clear reflow or reletter policy.

04
Evaluation factor

Working with the brief

15% weight

Assess quoting and scheduling on briefs: per-envelope pricing, guest list turnaround, ink colour matched to a brand palette, and delivery under event deadlines.

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

Quotes from a real brief with per-piece rates, spoilage allowance, and dates met on a large addressing or signage job.

Evidence-led prompts

Interview questions for a Calligraphy Artist

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

  1. 01

    Do you have a portfolio of your work available for review?

  2. 02

    What styles of calligraphy do you specialise in?

  3. 03

    What is the largest project you have completed?

  4. 04

    What materials and tools do you prefer to work with?

  5. 05

    What formal training or study do you have in calligraphy?

See the complete Calligraphy Artist 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