Interview scorecard template

Frontend Developer interview scorecard

Evaluate Frontend Developer candidates across 4 weighted areas: technical proficiency, systems and trade-offs, evidence and rigour, and collaboration and communication. Technical proficiency leads at 35%, so check depth in React or Vue with TypeScript: state management choices, hooks pitfalls, CSS architecture, bundler config (Vite, Webpack), and WCAG keyboard and ARIA work. Use the rubric to compare role-specific evidence consistently.

See AI scoring
software dataaccessibilitycore web vitalsreacttypescript
TL;DR
For technical proficiency, look for evidence the candidate names specific patterns used, explains hook dependency bugs or focus management fixes, and shows real accessibility remediation beyond a Lighthouse score. For systems and trade-offs, look for evidence the candidate weighs LCP and INP costs against developer velocity, cites a decision they later reversed, and explains the reasoning behind it. 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 proficiency

35% weight

Check depth in React or Vue with TypeScript: state management choices, hooks pitfalls, CSS architecture, bundler config (Vite, Webpack), and WCAG keyboard and ARIA work.

Evidence to listen for

  • Command of the languages, frameworks, and data tools the role actually uses
  • Understands correctness, performance, and failure modes, not just syntax
  • Has opinions on testing and can justify them
  • Reads and reasons about code they did not write

Five-point scoring guide

1
Poor

Cannot work independently; fundamentals are missing.

2
Needs Improvement

Weak fundamentals; output needs heavy review.

3
Satisfactory

Competent for the role; needs guidance on complex or unfamiliar work.

4
Very Good

Strong practitioner; handles hard problems with little guidance.

5
Excellent

Names specific patterns used, explains hook dependency bugs or focus management fixes, and shows real accessibility remediation beyond a Lighthouse score.

02
Evaluation factor

Systems and trade-offs

25% weight

Probe how they reason about bundle size, hydration versus client rendering, component API design, and when they chose a framework, a library, or plain DOM.

Evidence to listen for

  • Reasons about scale, latency, cost, and failure before writing code
  • Names the trade-off they chose and what they gave up
  • Understands the data lifecycle end to end
  • Anticipates what breaks at ten times the volume

Five-point scoring guide

1
Poor

No thinking beyond the immediate task; no awareness of scale or failure.

2
Needs Improvement

Limited architectural awareness; struggles with design decisions.

3
Satisfactory

Works within an existing design; makes sound local decisions.

4
Very Good

Designs for scale and maintainability; articulates trade-offs clearly.

5
Excellent

Weighs LCP and INP costs against developer velocity, cites a decision they later reversed, and explains the reasoning behind it.

03
Evaluation factor

Evidence and rigour

25% weight

Test measurement habits: Core Web Vitals from field data, Playwright or Cypress coverage, visual regression checks, and how they proved a refactor improved anything.

Evidence to listen for

  • Validates results rather than trusting output
  • Knows how their work is measured and what a bad result looks like
  • Can describe a time their own analysis or model was wrong and how they caught it
  • Careful about data quality, leakage, and silent failure

Five-point scoring guide

1
Poor

Ships unvalidated work; no notion of how correctness is checked.

2
Needs Improvement

Validates superficially; misses obvious quality or leakage issues.

3
Satisfactory

Reasonable checks in place; rigour drops under time pressure.

4
Very Good

Validates thoroughly; can name a real error they caught in their own work.

5
Excellent

Quotes before and after numbers from real users (RUM or CrUX), plus the test suite that stopped a regression reaching production.

04
Evaluation factor

Collaboration and communication

15% weight

Assess handoff with designers in Figma, negotiation with backend teams over API shape, and how they handled review comments on large pull requests.

Evidence to listen for

  • Explains technical work to non-technical stakeholders
  • Gives and takes code or peer review constructively
  • Documents enough that the work survives their absence
  • Aligns with team process rather than working around it

Five-point scoring guide

1
Poor

Cannot work in a team; resistant to feedback.

2
Needs Improvement

Communication issues create rework; lone-wolf tendencies.

3
Satisfactory

Adequate team member; documentation and review participation are light.

4
Very Good

Communicates well; reliable reviewer and collaborator.

5
Excellent

Describes pushing back on an unbuildable design or payload, then landing a compromise both sides shipped without rework.

Evidence-led prompts

Interview questions for a Frontend Developer

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

  1. 01

    Can you provide examples of websites or applications you have developed?

  2. 02

    What is one project you have done that you are proud of, and why?

  3. 03

    Which frontend frameworks have you worked with?

  4. 04

    Which JavaScript framework do you have the most experience with?

  5. 05

    Are you familiar with responsive web design?

See the complete Frontend Developer 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