design visual communicationdesign systemsfigmaproduct designux research
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
Portfolio
35% weight
Ask them to walk through two shipped product flows: the problem, wireframes, Figma prototypes, and what changed in the released build versus the original comp.
Evidence to listen for
Work exists and can be looked at, not just described
States what they made versus what the team or a template made
Shows range rather than one repeated style
Can walk through a piece from brief to final
Five-point scoring guide
1
Poor
No portfolio, or work that is unattributable or clearly templated.
2
Needs Improvement
Thin portfolio; unclear what they personally made.
3
Satisfactory
Real work with adequate range; contribution mostly clear.
4
Very Good
Strong varied portfolio with clear personal ownership.
5
Excellent
Shows end-to-end case studies with before and after metrics, not just polished dribbble shots of unshipped concepts.
02
Evaluation factor
Craft and rationale
25% weight
Probe their command of component libraries, auto layout, variants, tokens, accessibility contrast and touch targets, plus how they handle empty, error and loading states.
Evidence to listen for
Explains why a layout, type choice, or colour decision serves the brief
Knows typography and hierarchy as craft, not decoration
Works to a brand system without either breaking it or hiding behind it
Names the tools they are genuinely fast in
Five-point scoring guide
1
Poor
Cannot explain any decision; work is arbitrary.
2
Needs Improvement
Talks in taste terms only; no link between choice and brief.
3
Satisfactory
Sound craft with some ability to justify decisions.
4
Very Good
Articulate about why each choice serves the brief.
5
Excellent
Explains edge case coverage and design system decisions with reasons tied to user behaviour and engineering constraints.
03
Evaluation factor
Feedback and iteration
25% weight
Test how they respond to usability test findings, analytics contradicting their layout, or an engineer saying the interaction is too costly to build.
Evidence to listen for
Takes critique without treating it as an attack
Distinguishes a subjective preference from a real problem, and says so politely
Iterates fast rather than defending version one
Delivers files correctly and on time
Five-point scoring guide
1
Poor
Defensive about critique; will not revise.
2
Needs Improvement
Accepts feedback passively; iterations do not improve the work.
3
Satisfactory
Revises willingly; struggles to push back on weak feedback.
4
Very Good
Iterates quickly and can argue for the work when the feedback is wrong.
5
Excellent
Cites specific test sessions or funnel data that killed their favourite idea, and describes the replacement.
04
Evaluation factor
Working with the brief
15% weight
Check how they scope ambiguous product requests with PMs, define success criteria, and hand off specs, redlines and prototypes engineers can actually build from.
Evidence to listen for
Asks about audience and goal before opening the design tool
Works with marketing, product, or clients rather than in isolation
Flags an impossible brief early
Hands over files and assets others can actually use
Five-point scoring guide
1
Poor
Designs in isolation; ignores the brief's purpose.
2
Needs Improvement
Starts designing before understanding the goal.
3
Satisfactory
Asks the right questions when prompted.
4
Very Good
Interrogates the brief up front and hands over cleanly.
5
Excellent
Reframes vague briefs into clear problem statements and names the artefacts they gave developers for handoff.
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.
