Interview scorecard template

PHP Developer interview scorecard

Evaluate PHP 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 probe depth in PHP 8 features (enums, readonly properties, attributes), Composer dependency handling, and framework specifics: Laravel Eloquent, Symfony services, or legacy procedural codebases they modernised. Use the rubric to compare role-specific evidence consistently.

See AI scoring

software dataapi developmentlaravelmysqlphp

TL;DR

For technical proficiency, look for evidence the candidate names PHP 8 language features in context, explains Eloquent eager loading versus raw queries, and shows real Composer and autoload knowledge. For systems and trade-offs, look for evidence the candidate describes a specific N+1 or slow query they profiled, the index or cache they added, and the latency numbers before and after. 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.

Evaluation factor

Technical proficiency

35% weight

Probe depth in PHP 8 features (enums, readonly properties, attributes), Composer dependency handling, and framework specifics: Laravel Eloquent, Symfony services, or legacy procedural codebases they modernised.

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

Poor

Cannot work independently; fundamentals are missing.

Needs Improvement

Weak fundamentals; output needs heavy review.

Satisfactory

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

Very Good

Strong practitioner; handles hard problems with little guidance.

Excellent

Names PHP 8 language features in context, explains Eloquent eager loading versus raw queries, and shows real Composer and autoload knowledge.

Evaluation factor

Systems and trade-offs

25% weight

Test how they handle MySQL query performance, caching layers (Redis, OPcache), queue workers, and choices between monolith and API-first structure under real traffic.

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

Poor

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

Needs Improvement

Limited architectural awareness; struggles with design decisions.

Satisfactory

Works within an existing design; makes sound local decisions.

Very Good

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

Excellent

Describes a specific N+1 or slow query they profiled, the index or cache they added, and the latency numbers before and after.

Evaluation factor

Evidence and rigour

25% weight

Assess testing habits: PHPUnit or Pest coverage, static analysis with PHPStan or Psalm, PSR-12 linting, and how they verify migrations before production deploys.

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

Poor

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

Needs Improvement

Validates superficially; misses obvious quality or leakage issues.

Satisfactory

Reasonable checks in place; rigour drops under time pressure.

Very Good

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

Excellent

Cites PHPStan levels reached, meaningful test suites they wrote, and a rollback or migration failure they caught before release.

Evaluation factor

Collaboration and communication

15% weight

Look for evidence of code review practice, working from tickets in Jira or Linear, and explaining technical debt or refactor cost to product owners and designers.

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

Poor

Cannot work in a team; resistant to feedback.

Needs Improvement

Communication issues create rework; lone-wolf tendencies.

Satisfactory

Adequate team member; documentation and review participation are light.

Very Good

Communicates well; reliable reviewer and collaborator.

Excellent

Gives concrete review comments they gave or received, and shows they negotiated scope with product rather than silently accumulating debt.

Evidence-led prompts

Interview questions for a PHP Developer

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

01
Have you worked on large PHP projects, and what was your role?
02
Can you describe a challenging problem you hit in PHP and how you solved it?
03
Do you have experience with PHP performance optimisation?
04
Do you have experience with PHP frameworks, and which ones?
05
What is your understanding of object-oriented programming in PHP?

See the complete PHP 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