Interview scorecard template

Cloud Infrastructure Architect interview scorecard

Evaluate Cloud Infrastructure Architect candidates across 4 weighted areas: technical proficiency, systems and trade-offs, evidence and rigour, and collaboration and communication. Technical proficiency leads at 35%, so probe depth across a named cloud: VPC and transit gateway design, IAM boundaries, Terraform or CloudFormation modules, Kubernetes networking, and how they handle multi-account landing. Use the rubric to compare role-specific evidence consistently.

See AI scoring
software dataawscloud architecturekubernetesterraform
TL;DR
For technical proficiency, look for evidence the candidate names specific services and versions, explains subnet and IAM design choices, and writes reusable infrastructure as code rather than console clicks. For systems and trade-offs, look for evidence the candidate quantifies trade-offs with real cost and latency numbers, and cites a design they deliberately kept simple to reduce operational load. 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

Technical proficiency

35% weight

Probe depth across a named cloud: VPC and transit gateway design, IAM boundaries, Terraform or CloudFormation modules, Kubernetes networking, and how they handle multi-account landing zones.

Evidence to listen for

  • Command of the languages, frameworks, and data tools the role actually uses
  • Understands correctness, performance, and failure modes, not just syntax
  • Has opinions on testing and can justify them
  • Reads and reasons about code they did not write

Five-point scoring guide

1
Poor

Cannot work independently; fundamentals are missing.

2
Needs Improvement

Weak fundamentals; output needs heavy review.

3
Satisfactory

Competent for the role; needs guidance on complex or unfamiliar work.

4
Very Good

Strong practitioner; handles hard problems with little guidance.

5
Excellent

Names specific services and versions, explains subnet and IAM design choices, and writes reusable infrastructure as code rather than console clicks.

02
Evaluation factor

Systems and trade-offs

25% weight

Test how they weigh managed services against self-hosted, multi-region cost versus RTO and RPO targets, and when they chose monolith over microservices infrastructure.

Evidence to listen for

  • Reasons about scale, latency, cost, and failure before writing code
  • Names the trade-off they chose and what they gave up
  • Understands the data lifecycle end to end
  • Anticipates what breaks at ten times the volume

Five-point scoring guide

1
Poor

No thinking beyond the immediate task; no awareness of scale or failure.

2
Needs Improvement

Limited architectural awareness; struggles with design decisions.

3
Satisfactory

Works within an existing design; makes sound local decisions.

4
Very Good

Designs for scale and maintainability; articulates trade-offs clearly.

5
Excellent

Quantifies trade-offs with real cost and latency numbers, and cites a design they deliberately kept simple to reduce operational load.

03
Evaluation factor

Evidence and rigour

25% weight

Check for evidence of capacity modelling, load test results, cost dashboards, SLO error budgets, and postmortems from outages they architected around afterwards.

Evidence to listen for

  • Validates results rather than trusting output
  • Knows how their work is measured and what a bad result looks like
  • Can describe a time their own analysis or model was wrong and how they caught it
  • Careful about data quality, leakage, and silent failure

Five-point scoring guide

1
Poor

Ships unvalidated work; no notion of how correctness is checked.

2
Needs Improvement

Validates superficially; misses obvious quality or leakage issues.

3
Satisfactory

Reasonable checks in place; rigour drops under time pressure.

4
Very Good

Validates thoroughly; can name a real error they caught in their own work.

5
Excellent

Backs decisions with benchmarks, monthly spend figures, and a postmortem where their design assumption proved wrong and was corrected.

04
Evaluation factor

Collaboration and communication

15% weight

Assess how they took developers, security, and finance through an architecture review: decision records, diagrams, migration runbooks, and pushback they absorbed.

Evidence to listen for

  • Explains technical work to non-technical stakeholders
  • Gives and takes code or peer review constructively
  • Documents enough that the work survives their absence
  • Aligns with team process rather than working around it

Five-point scoring guide

1
Poor

Cannot work in a team; resistant to feedback.

2
Needs Improvement

Communication issues create rework; lone-wolf tendencies.

3
Satisfactory

Adequate team member; documentation and review participation are light.

4
Very Good

Communicates well; reliable reviewer and collaborator.

5
Excellent

Produces ADRs and diagrams others actually use, and describes changing a design after security or platform team objections.

Evidence-led prompts

Interview questions for a Cloud Infrastructure Architect

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

  1. 01

    Have you previously designed an organisation's cloud strategy?

  2. 02

    Can you describe your knowledge of the different cloud providers?

  3. 03

    Can you describe your experience with infrastructure, platform and software services?

  4. 04

    Do you have experience with network design and topologies in cloud environments?

  5. 05

    What strategies would you use to manage cost optimisation in the cloud?

See the complete Cloud Infrastructure Architect 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