Interview scorecard template

DevSecOps Engineer interview scorecard

Evaluate DevSecOps Engineer candidates across 4 weighted areas: technical depth, real incidents and findings, risk judgement, and getting things fixed. Technical depth leads at 35%, so check hands-on command of pipeline security: SAST/DAST tooling (Semgrep, Snyk, Trivy), secrets management via Vault, Kubernetes admission controls, OPA policy, and Terraform IaC scanning. Use the rubric to compare role-specific evidence consistently.

See AI scoring
security complianceci cd securitydevsecopskubernetessast dast
TL;DR
For technical depth, look for evidence the candidate names specific scanners and policy engines they configured, explains gate thresholds, and describes signing or SBOM work with Cosign or Syft. For real incidents and findings, look for evidence the candidate walks through an actual incident with dates, blast radius, rotation of credentials, and the pipeline control added afterwards to prevent recurrence. 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

Check hands-on command of pipeline security: SAST/DAST tooling (Semgrep, Snyk, Trivy), secrets management via Vault, Kubernetes admission controls, OPA policy, and Terraform IaC scanning.

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 scanners and policy engines they configured, explains gate thresholds, and describes signing or SBOM work with Cosign or Syft.

02
Evaluation factor

Real incidents and findings

30% weight

Probe real findings they surfaced: a compromised CI runner, leaked cloud credentials in Git history, a vulnerable base image, or an exploited dependency. Ask for timelines and containment steps.

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

Walks through an actual incident with dates, blast radius, rotation of credentials, and the pipeline control added afterwards to prevent recurrence.

03
Evaluation factor

Risk judgement

20% weight

Assess how they triage CVE floods: reachability analysis, EPSS and CVSS use, exploitability in context, and when they accept risk rather than block a release.

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

Prioritises by exploitability and asset exposure, cites examples of waiving low-risk CVEs while escalating a genuinely reachable one.

04
Evaluation factor

Getting things fixed

15% weight

Look for evidence they moved developers, not just tickets: guardrails over gates, pre-commit hooks, mean time to remediate metrics, and reduced false positive rates in scan output.

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

Cites measurable remediation improvements and describes tuning noisy scanners so engineering teams stopped bypassing security checks.

Evidence-led prompts

Interview questions for a DevSecOps Engineer

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

  1. 01

    How do you automate security configurations in a continuous integration and deployment pipeline?

  2. 02

    How have you used infrastructure as code in a security context?

  3. 03

    Can you explain how a secure software development lifecycle integrates into a DevOps way of working?

  4. 04

    Can you give an instance where you built security in from the beginning of a project?

  5. 05

    Can you share a security incident response you managed or were part of?

See the complete DevSecOps Engineer 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