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 hands-on work with dialogue frameworks (Rasa, Dialogflow CX, LangGraph), LLM fine-tuning or prompt orchestration, and intent classifiers trained on distress language or CBT-style scripted flows.
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 models, retrieval setups and dialogue state machines they built, including how self-harm intents were detected and routed.
02
Evaluation factor
Systems and trade-offs
25% weight
Probe trade-offs between scripted clinical protocols and generative responses: latency, hallucination risk, on-device versus API inference, PHI handling under HIPAA or GDPR, and fallback design.
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
Explains why they constrained generation for crisis paths while allowing open dialogue elsewhere, with concrete cost, safety and privacy reasoning.
03
Evaluation factor
Evidence and rigour
25% weight
Test how they evaluated safety: red-teaming for suicidal ideation prompts, human clinician review of transcripts, escalation precision and recall, retention or session-completion metrics.
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
Cites measured false-negative rates on crisis detection, clinician-annotated eval sets, and changes shipped after adverse transcript reviews.
04
Evaluation factor
Collaboration and communication
15% weight
Assess collaboration with psychologists, clinical safety officers and regulators; look for evidence they translated therapeutic protocols into conversation design and documented safety cases.
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 working sessions with licensed clinicians, disagreements resolved with evidence, and clear written safety documentation reviewers accepted.
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.
