Interview scorecard template

Cyber Threat Intelligence Analyst interview scorecard

Evaluate Cyber Threat Intelligence Analyst candidates across 4 weighted areas: technical depth, real incidents and findings, risk judgement, and getting things fixed. Technical depth leads at 35%, so probe adversary tradecraft, intelligence frameworks, and their sourcing beyond vendor feeds. Use the rubric to compare role-specific evidence consistently. Record evidence before choosing each rating.

See AI scoring
security complianceadversary trackingcticybersecuritythreat intelligence
TL;DR
For technical depth, look for evidence the candidate knows adversary tradecraft and frameworks properly, with sourcing that goes well past vendor feeds. For real incidents and findings, look for evidence the candidate names intelligence they produced that changed a defensive decision, and how they knew it landed. 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 adversary tradecraft, intelligence frameworks, and their sourcing beyond vendor feeds.

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

Knows adversary tradecraft and frameworks properly, with sourcing that goes well past vendor feeds.

02
Evaluation factor

Real incidents and findings

30% weight

Look for intelligence they produced that changed a defensive decision, not just reports they circulated.

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

Names intelligence they produced that changed a defensive decision, and how they knew it landed.

03
Evaluation factor

Risk judgement

20% weight

Test how they handle attribution and confidence when the evidence is partial and the pressure is to name someone.

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

States confidence levels explicitly, resists premature attribution, and revises publicly when new evidence lands.

04
Evaluation factor

Getting things fixed

15% weight

Assess how they write for a SOC analyst and an executive in the same week without saying the same thing twice.

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

Writes for both SOC and executive audiences so each can act, without diluting or inflating the assessment.

Evidence-led prompts

Interview questions for a Cyber Threat Intelligence Analyst

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

  1. 01

    Explain the difference between tactical, operational, and strategic threat intelligence, and say which one you have produced most of.

  2. 02

    How familiar are you with the MITRE ATT&CK framework, and how have you actually applied it in a past role?

  3. 03

    What types of indicators of compromise have you worked with, and what did you do with them beyond adding them to a blocklist?

  4. 04

    What is your process for validating the credibility and reliability of a threat intelligence source?

  5. 05

    What experience do you have with open-source intelligence gathering, and which sources do you actually rely on?

See the complete Cyber Threat Intelligence Analyst 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