sales business developmentats workflowboolean sourcingcandidate pipelinetechnical recruiting
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
Track record
35% weight
Check placement numbers for technical roles: requisitions closed per quarter, time to fill for backend or DevOps hires, offer acceptance rate, and named ATS such as Greenhouse or Lever.
Explains the market and buyer they sold to, not just the product
Distinguishes what they closed from what the team closed
Can describe a deal they lost and why
Five-point scoring guide
1
Poor
No numbers; cannot describe what they actually sold or to whom.
2
Needs Improvement
Vague attainment; credit for team results is unclear.
3
Satisfactory
Real record with some numbers; attribution occasionally fuzzy.
4
Very Good
Clear numbers and ownership, including honest losses.
5
Excellent
Quotes concrete figures, for example 14 engineering hires in a year at 32 days average time to fill, with offer accept rate.
02
Evaluation factor
Method and qualification
25% weight
Test sourcing and screening method: Boolean and X-Ray strings, GitHub or Stack Overflow sourcing, intake meetings with hiring managers, and how they judge a Java versus Kotlin CV without being an engineer.
Evidence to listen for
Has a repeatable approach to qualifying and progressing deals
Can walk a real deal from first contact to close
Handles objections with questions rather than scripts
Knows when to disqualify
Five-point scoring guide
1
Poor
No method; pitches at everyone and hopes.
2
Needs Improvement
Weak qualification; deals stall with no diagnosis.
3
Satisfactory
Workable method; inconsistent on complex or long cycles.
4
Very Good
Clear repeatable method; disqualifies early and deliberately.
5
Excellent
Describes a repeatable intake and calibration process, shows real search strings, and explains how they screen stacks they cannot code in.
03
Evaluation factor
Relationships and trust
25% weight
Probe how they keep passive senior engineers engaged: follow-up cadence, referral generation, candidate withdrawal recovery, and relationships with hiring managers who reject most of the shortlist.
Evidence to listen for
Has clients or talent who came back or referred them
Manages a difficult conversation without damaging the relationship
Represents the client's interest, not only the commission
Builds rapport across seniority levels
Five-point scoring guide
1
Poor
Transactional; burns relationships for a close.
2
Needs Improvement
Builds rapport but does not sustain relationships.
3
Satisfactory
Solid relationships; less tested in conflict.
4
Very Good
Repeat business and referrals; handles conflict without damage.
5
Excellent
Names candidates who returned months later or referred peers, and describes rebuilding trust with a hiring manager after a bad shortlist.
04
Evaluation factor
Drive and resilience
15% weight
Assess response to a frozen requisition, counter-offer losses, and 100 outreach messages returning three replies; look for how they reset targets and rework messaging.
Evidence to listen for
Handles rejection and a bad quarter without unravelling
Self-directed on pipeline rather than waiting for leads
Coachable on feedback
Honest in how they represent the product and themselves
Five-point scoring guide
1
Poor
Gives up easily; blames leads, product, or market.
2
Needs Improvement
Motivation depends on momentum; resistant to coaching.
3
Satisfactory
Steady; recovers from setbacks with support.
4
Very Good
Self-motivated, coachable, and steady through bad stretches.
5
Excellent
Treats low reply rates as a messaging problem, tracks outreach conversion, and gives examples of pipelines rebuilt after a lost finalist.
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.
