Interview scorecard template

Chef interview scorecard

Evaluate Chef candidates across 4 weighted areas: craft of the service, client care, standards and hygiene, and commercial awareness. Craft of the service leads at 35%, so check which sections they have run (larder, sauce, pastry, grill), covers per service, and menu dishes they wrote themselves including specs, plating and yield testing. Use the rubric to compare role-specific evidence consistently.

See AI scoring
service hospitalityfood cost gphaccpkitchen brigademenu development
TL;DR
For craft of the service, look for evidence the candidate names sections owned, peak cover counts and specific dishes they developed, with clear reasoning on technique, seasonality and consistency across services. For client care, look for evidence the candidate describes concrete recovery of a returned dish and a robust allergen process, treating server feedback as information rather than interference. 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

Craft of the service

35% weight

Check which sections they have run (larder, sauce, pastry, grill), covers per service, and menu dishes they wrote themselves including specs, plating and yield testing.

Evidence to listen for

  • Command of the treatments, techniques, or service standards the role requires
  • Holds current qualifications where regulated
  • Can explain contraindications, limits, or when to decline
  • Keeps skills current rather than coasting on training

Five-point scoring guide

1
Poor

Unsafe or unqualified; cannot explain their own technique.

2
Needs Improvement

Basic competence; gaps in contraindications or standards.

3
Satisfactory

Competent across the standard menu; less confident beyond it.

4
Very Good

Skilled and current; clear on limits and when to decline.

5
Excellent

Names sections owned, peak cover counts and specific dishes they developed, with clear reasoning on technique, seasonality and consistency across services.

02
Evaluation factor

Client care

30% weight

Probe how they handle allergen requests, guest complaints returned to the pass, and chef's table or dietary bookings; look for coordination with front of house during service.

Evidence to listen for

  • Reads what a client actually wants versus what they asked for
  • Handles a complaint without defensiveness or capitulation
  • Maintains discretion and appropriate boundaries
  • Clients ask for them by name

Five-point scoring guide

1
Poor

Dismissive of clients; boundaries or discretion are a concern.

2
Needs Improvement

Task-focused; complaints escalate rather than resolve.

3
Satisfactory

Good with straightforward clients; less sure with difficult ones.

4
Very Good

Strong client rapport with repeat requests and calm complaint handling.

5
Excellent

Describes concrete recovery of a returned dish and a robust allergen process, treating server feedback as information rather than interference.

03
Evaluation factor

Standards and hygiene

20% weight

Test HACCP paperwork ownership: temperature logs, cook-chill records, date labelling, deep clean rotas, plus their last environmental health inspection score and what triggered any points.

Evidence to listen for

  • Treats sanitation, preparation, and turnaround as non-negotiable
  • Keeps the space to standard when nobody is checking
  • Knows the regulations that apply and follows them
  • Reports a problem rather than working around it

Five-point scoring guide

1
Poor

Casual about hygiene or preparation standards.

2
Needs Improvement

Meets standards when supervised only.

3
Satisfactory

Reliable standards; occasional lapses under time pressure.

4
Very Good

Standards hold under pressure and without supervision.

5
Excellent

Owns HACCP documentation without prompting, cites a hygiene rating and explains a corrective action they implemented after an audit finding.

04
Evaluation factor

Commercial awareness

15% weight

Assess grasp of gross profit targets, food cost percentage, portion control, supplier negotiation and wastage tracking; ask for numbers before and after a change they made.

Evidence to listen for

  • Understands how the business makes money from their time
  • Recommends and rebooks without pressuring
  • Manages a schedule and turnaround to keep utilisation up
  • Handles retail or upsell honestly

Five-point scoring guide

1
Poor

No commercial awareness, or pushes sales at the client's expense.

2
Needs Improvement

Passive on rebooking and recommendations.

3
Satisfactory

Reasonable rebooking; scheduling sometimes loose.

4
Very Good

Strong rebooking and utilisation without pressuring clients.

5
Excellent

Quotes GP percentage moved, names wastage or portioning changes and supplier switches, linking menu engineering directly to margin outcomes.

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