Interview scorecard template

Figma User Interface Designer interview scorecard

Evaluate Figma User Interface Designer candidates across 4 weighted areas: portfolio, craft and rationale, feedback and iteration, and working with the brief. Portfolio leads at 35%, so ask for two shipped product screens or flows and the Figma file behind them: check auto layout structure, component variants, responsive resizing, and whether engineers. Use the rubric to compare role-specific evidence consistently.

See AI scoring
design visual communicationdesign systemsfigmaprototypingui design
TL;DR
For portfolio, look for evidence the candidate walks through live Figma files with clean auto layout, named variants and tokens, pointing to the shipped app screens they produced. For craft and rationale, look for evidence the candidate defends specific spacing, hierarchy and accessibility choices with reasoning, and shows edge case states most portfolios quietly omit. 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

Portfolio

35% weight

Ask for two shipped product screens or flows and the Figma file behind them: check auto layout structure, component variants, responsive resizing, and whether engineers actually built from it.

Evidence to listen for

  • Work exists and can be looked at, not just described
  • States what they made versus what the team or a template made
  • Shows range rather than one repeated style
  • Can walk through a piece from brief to final

Five-point scoring guide

1
Poor

No portfolio, or work that is unattributable or clearly templated.

2
Needs Improvement

Thin portfolio; unclear what they personally made.

3
Satisfactory

Real work with adequate range; contribution mostly clear.

4
Very Good

Strong varied portfolio with clear personal ownership.

5
Excellent

Walks through live Figma files with clean auto layout, named variants and tokens, pointing to the shipped app screens they produced.

02
Evaluation factor

Craft and rationale

25% weight

Probe craft decisions: type scale, 8pt spacing, contrast ratios against WCAG AA, empty and error states, and why they chose a pattern over a native component.

Evidence to listen for

  • Explains why a layout, type choice, or colour decision serves the brief
  • Knows typography and hierarchy as craft, not decoration
  • Works to a brand system without either breaking it or hiding behind it
  • Names the tools they are genuinely fast in

Five-point scoring guide

1
Poor

Cannot explain any decision; work is arbitrary.

2
Needs Improvement

Talks in taste terms only; no link between choice and brief.

3
Satisfactory

Sound craft with some ability to justify decisions.

4
Very Good

Articulate about why each choice serves the brief.

5
Excellent

Defends specific spacing, hierarchy and accessibility choices with reasoning, and shows edge case states most portfolios quietly omit.

03
Evaluation factor

Feedback and iteration

25% weight

Test how they handle critique and data: usability test findings, PM or engineering pushback, and a screen they redesigned after watching users struggle with it.

Evidence to listen for

  • Takes critique without treating it as an attack
  • Distinguishes a subjective preference from a real problem, and says so politely
  • Iterates fast rather than defending version one
  • Delivers files correctly and on time

Five-point scoring guide

1
Poor

Defensive about critique; will not revise.

2
Needs Improvement

Accepts feedback passively; iterations do not improve the work.

3
Satisfactory

Revises willingly; struggles to push back on weak feedback.

4
Very Good

Iterates quickly and can argue for the work when the feedback is wrong.

5
Excellent

Names a design they changed after testing or dev feedback, describing the original flaw and the measured or observed improvement.

04
Evaluation factor

Working with the brief

15% weight

Judge intake and delivery habits: how they scope ambiguous requests, handoff via dev mode or annotated specs, and how they keep a shared component library from drifting.

Evidence to listen for

  • Asks about audience and goal before opening the design tool
  • Works with marketing, product, or clients rather than in isolation
  • Flags an impossible brief early
  • Hands over files and assets others can actually use

Five-point scoring guide

1
Poor

Designs in isolation; ignores the brief's purpose.

2
Needs Improvement

Starts designing before understanding the goal.

3
Satisfactory

Asks the right questions when prompted.

4
Very Good

Interrogates the brief up front and hands over cleanly.

5
Excellent

Turns vague briefs into clarified scope, delivers annotated handoff files, and maintains library governance so duplicate components stop appearing.

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