Interview scorecard template

L1 Technical Support Engineer interview scorecard

Evaluate L1 Technical Support Engineer candidates across 4 weighted areas: technical proficiency, systems and trade-offs, evidence and rigour, and collaboration and communication. Technical proficiency leads at 35%, so test everyday troubleshooting: reading application logs, basic SQL lookups, DNS and connectivity checks, Active Directory password and permission resets, browser console errors, VPN. Use the rubric to compare role-specific evidence consistently.

See AI scoring
software datal1 supportsla managementticket triagezendesk jira
TL;DR
For technical proficiency, look for evidence the candidate names the exact commands, log paths and admin consoles used, and explains what each output ruled in or out. For systems and trade-offs, look for evidence the candidate draws a clear line between user error, config issue and product bug, citing tickets they correctly routed or held. 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

Test everyday troubleshooting: reading application logs, basic SQL lookups, DNS and connectivity checks, Active Directory password and permission resets, browser console errors, VPN and SSO failures.

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 the exact commands, log paths and admin consoles used, and explains what each output ruled in or out.

02
Evaluation factor

Systems and trade-offs

25% weight

Probe how they know where a ticket belongs: understanding of the product stack, escalation criteria to L2 or engineering, and when a defect differs from misconfiguration.

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

Draws a clear line between user error, config issue and product bug, citing tickets they correctly routed or held.

03
Evaluation factor

Evidence and rigour

25% weight

Assess ticket discipline: reproduction steps, environment details captured, SLA and first-response times, CSAT scores, deflection through knowledge base articles they wrote.

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 real queue numbers (tickets per day, SLA hit rate, CSAT) and shows KB articles or macros they authored.

04
Evaluation factor

Collaboration and communication

15% weight

Judge how they handle a frustrated customer on chat or a call, plus handoff quality to L2, shift handover notes, and status updates during outages.

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

Explains technical causes in plain language, sets expectations proactively, and leaves handoffs a colleague can pick up cold.

Evidence-led prompts

Interview questions for a L1 Technical Support Engineer

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 troubleshooting software and hardware issues?

  2. 02

    What steps do you follow when troubleshooting a network connectivity issue?

  3. 03

    How well versed are you with the operating systems you would be supporting?

  4. 04

    What would you do if a user reports an issue you have not seen before?

  5. 05

    How do you document and report issues and their resolutions for future reference?

See the complete L1 Technical Support 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