Interview scorecard template

Genomic Data Curator interview scorecard

Evaluate Genomic Data Curator candidates across 4 weighted areas: method and rigour, real casework, interpretation and judgement, and reporting and testimony. Method and rigour leads at 35%, so check command of ACMG/AMP classification criteria, HGVS nomenclature, and ontology mapping with HPO or MONDO; ask which reference builds, transcripts, and gnomAD population filters. Use the rubric to compare role-specific evidence consistently.

See AI scoring
science investigationacmg guidelinesclinvarhgvs nomenclaturevariant curation
TL;DR
For method and rigour, look for evidence the candidate cites specific evidence codes (PS3, PM2, BP4), explains transcript selection and build liftover, and names population frequency thresholds used. For real casework, look for evidence the candidate quantifies curated variants or genes, names the submitting lab or ClinGen expert panel, and describes concordance rates with reviewers. 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

Method and rigour

35% weight

Check command of ACMG/AMP classification criteria, HGVS nomenclature, and ontology mapping with HPO or MONDO; ask which reference builds, transcripts, and gnomAD population filters they apply.

Evidence to listen for

  • Follows and can justify an established methodology
  • Understands contamination, bias, and chain of custody as they apply to the field
  • Knows the limits of their techniques and says so
  • Documents procedure so results are reproducible and defensible

Five-point scoring guide

1
Poor

Careless method; unaware of contamination, bias, or procedural integrity.

2
Needs Improvement

Knows procedures but applies them inconsistently; gaps in documentation.

3
Satisfactory

Sound standard practice; less certain outside familiar techniques.

4
Very Good

Rigorous and well documented; understands the limits of each method.

5
Excellent

Cites specific evidence codes (PS3, PM2, BP4), explains transcript selection and build liftover, and names population frequency thresholds used.

02
Evaluation factor

Real casework

25% weight

Probe volume and type of curated content: variants per week, gene-disease validity assessments, ClinVar or ClinGen submissions, panel content reviews, or literature triage backlogs they cleared.

Evidence to listen for

  • Brings specific cases, sites, or projects rather than general description
  • States their own role and what they personally handled
  • Can describe an ambiguous or degraded case and how they proceeded
  • Knows what happened to the work afterwards

Five-point scoring guide

1
Poor

No hands-on casework; experience is entirely academic.

2
Needs Improvement

Limited exposure; cannot describe their own contribution clearly.

3
Satisfactory

Real casework with adequate detail; ownership sometimes vague.

4
Very Good

Specific cases with clear personal scope and outcomes.

5
Excellent

Quantifies curated variants or genes, names the submitting lab or ClinGen expert panel, and describes concordance rates with reviewers.

03
Evaluation factor

Interpretation and judgement

25% weight

Test how they resolve conflicting evidence: discordant ClinVar submissions, weak functional assays, VUS reclassification triggers, or segregation data that contradicts computational predictors.

Evidence to listen for

  • Separates what the evidence shows from what they infer
  • States confidence levels and what would change their conclusion
  • Comfortable saying the result is inconclusive
  • Handles pressure to reach a preferred conclusion without bending

Five-point scoring guide

1
Poor

Overstates findings; no separation of evidence from inference.

2
Needs Improvement

Reaches conclusions the evidence does not support; uneasy with uncertainty.

3
Satisfactory

Reasonable judgement; qualifies findings when prompted.

4
Very Good

Clearly separates evidence from inference and states confidence unprompted.

5
Excellent

Walks through a reclassification they drove, weighting each evidence line explicitly and stating what would have changed the call.

04
Evaluation factor

Reporting and testimony

15% weight

Assess written curation records: evidence summaries, internal review notes, discrepancy escalations to variant scientists, and how they document decisions for audit or reanalysis cycles.

Evidence to listen for

  • Writes findings that a non-specialist can act on
  • Has presented or defended work to an external audience: court, client, review board, publication
  • Withstands challenge without overclaiming or retreating
  • Keeps records that hold up to scrutiny

Five-point scoring guide

1
Poor

Cannot communicate findings; records would not withstand review.

2
Needs Improvement

Reporting is unclear or incomplete; avoids external scrutiny.

3
Satisfactory

Adequate reports; limited experience defending work externally.

4
Very Good

Clear reporting and real experience presenting to an external audience.

5
Excellent

Produces traceable curation notes citing PMIDs and criteria applied, and defends calls calmly in expert panel or sign-out review.

Evidence-led prompts

Interview questions for a Genomic Data Curator

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

  1. 01

    Can you describe your experience with genomic data annotation and curation?

  2. 02

    What experience do you have with sequencing data from current platforms?

  3. 03

    Can you discuss a challenging project involving genomic data?

  4. 04

    Can you provide examples of quality control measures you implement?

  5. 05

    How do you ensure data integrity and accuracy in your curation process?

See the complete Genomic Data Curator 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