Interview scorecard template

Cryptocurrency Auditor interview scorecard

Evaluate Cryptocurrency Auditor candidates across 4 weighted areas: technical depth, real incidents and findings, risk judgement, and getting things fixed. Technical depth leads at 35%, so probe depth in Solidity or Rust contract review: reentrancy, oracle manipulation, signature replay, plus tooling like Slither, Echidna, Foundry invariant tests and on-chain tracing via Chainalysis. Use the rubric to compare role-specific evidence consistently.

See AI scoring
security compliancedefi riskproof of reservessmart contract auditsolidity
TL;DR
For technical depth, look for evidence the candidate names specific vulnerability classes with EVM-level reasoning and shows fluency in fuzzing, invariant testing and on-chain forensic tracing. For real incidents and findings, look for evidence the candidate cites published audit reports or reserve attestations, quantifies critical findings, and describes an exploit they traced end to end. 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 depth

35% weight

Probe depth in Solidity or Rust contract review: reentrancy, oracle manipulation, signature replay, plus tooling like Slither, Echidna, Foundry invariant tests and on-chain tracing via Chainalysis or Etherscan.

Evidence to listen for

  • Command of the specific attack surface, tooling, and controls the role covers
  • Understands how the underlying system works, not just how the tool reports on it
  • Can explain an attack or control chain end to end
  • Distinguishes what they found themselves from what a scanner flagged

Five-point scoring guide

1
Poor

Tool operator only; no understanding of the systems underneath.

2
Needs Improvement

Runs tooling but cannot explain findings or how the attack works.

3
Satisfactory

Solid working knowledge; depth thins outside familiar tooling.

4
Very Good

Strong command of the domain; explains attack and control chains clearly.

5
Excellent

Names specific vulnerability classes with EVM-level reasoning and shows fluency in fuzzing, invariant testing and on-chain forensic tracing.

02
Evaluation factor

Real incidents and findings

30% weight

Ask for named audit engagements or exchange reviews: findings raised by severity, proof-of-reserves attestations run, exploits investigated post-mortem, and which reports are publicly published under their name.

Evidence to listen for

  • Brings specific incidents, findings, or audits they personally worked
  • States their own role rather than the team's
  • Describes what was actually at risk and what changed afterwards
  • Can talk about a finding that turned out to be wrong

Five-point scoring guide

1
Poor

No hands-on work; knowledge is entirely certification or coursework.

2
Needs Improvement

Limited exposure; cannot describe their contribution to an incident.

3
Satisfactory

Real casework with adequate detail; ownership sometimes vague.

4
Very Good

Specific incidents with clear personal scope and what changed after.

5
Excellent

Cites published audit reports or reserve attestations, quantifies critical findings, and describes an exploit they traced end to end.

03
Evaluation factor

Risk judgement

20% weight

Test how they rank a low-likelihood, high-impact bridge flaw against custody key management gaps, and how they weigh Travel Rule, MiCA or SOC 2 exposure for a client.

Evidence to listen for

  • Prioritises by actual exploitability and business impact, not raw severity scores
  • Can argue for accepting a risk as well as fixing it
  • Knows the difference between a finding and a problem
  • Does not cry wolf or wave things through

Five-point scoring guide

1
Poor

Treats every finding as critical, or waves real risk through.

2
Needs Improvement

Follows severity scores mechanically; no business context.

3
Satisfactory

Reasonable prioritisation; less confident arguing for risk acceptance.

4
Very Good

Prioritises by exploitability and impact; can justify accepting a risk.

5
Excellent

Separates theoretical severity from realistic exploit economics, justifies severity ratings, and flags custody and regulatory risk without inflating every finding.

04
Evaluation factor

Getting things fixed

15% weight

Check how they drive remediation with protocol teams: retest cycles, mitigation reviews before mainnet deploy, disputed findings with founders, and coordinated disclosure timelines with affected parties.

Evidence to listen for

  • Writes findings engineers can act on rather than a wall of output
  • Has persuaded a team to fix something they did not want to fix
  • Explains risk to executives in business terms
  • Works with the org rather than policing it

Five-point scoring guide

1
Poor

Adversarial with engineering; findings never get fixed.

2
Needs Improvement

Reports are unactionable; no influence beyond raising tickets.

3
Satisfactory

Adequate reporting; relies on mandate rather than persuasion.

4
Very Good

Actionable findings and a real record of getting fixes shipped.

5
Excellent

Describes retesting fixes to closure, handling founder pushback with evidence, and managing responsible disclosure without leaking live vulnerabilities.

Evidence-led prompts

Interview questions for a Cryptocurrency Auditor

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

  1. 01

    What experience do you have auditing cryptocurrency transactions and systems?

  2. 02

    Can you provide examples of audits performed for token projects or protocols?

  3. 03

    Can you describe a challenging audit and how you resolved the issues?

  4. 04

    How do you verify the integrity and holdings of an entity on a blockchain?

  5. 05

    Can you explain your process for auditing token distribution and supply?

See the complete Cryptocurrency Auditor 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