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
Check hands-on exposure beyond coursework: Splunk or Wireshark labs, TryHackMe or Hack The Box paths, Security+ progress, Nmap scans, and reading a Windows Event log or firewall rule.
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 tools used, walks through a log or packet capture they analysed, and links findings to MITRE ATT&CK techniques.
02
Evaluation factor
Real incidents and findings
30% weight
Probe any real triage work: phishing reports escalated, home lab intrusion detection setups, CTF write-ups, university SOC placements, or vulnerability scans they ran and documented.
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
Describes a concrete alert or CTF challenge end to end, including what indicators they checked and what the outcome was.
03
Evaluation factor
Risk judgement
20% weight
Assess how they rank findings: can they explain why a critical CVSS score may still be low priority, or which phishing report warrants waking someone up?
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 severity from business impact, asks about asset value and exposure, and admits when a call needs escalation to a senior analyst.
04
Evaluation factor
Getting things fixed
15% weight
Look for follow-through on remediation: patch tickets chased, awareness training material written, documentation updated, or a lab misconfiguration they reported and confirmed was fixed.
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
Shows they tracked an issue until closed, wrote it up clearly for a non-security reader, and verified the fix rather than assuming it.
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.
