Interview scorecard template

Robotics Technician interview scorecard

Evaluate Robotics Technician candidates across 4 weighted areas: hands-on competence, safety discipline, fault finding, and reliability and conduct. Hands-on competence leads at 35%, so check hands-on work with specific platforms: FANUC, ABB or KUKA teach pendants, servo motor and harmonic drive replacement, encoder mastering, end effector alignment, and PLC I/O checks. Use the rubric to compare role-specific evidence consistently.

See AI scoring
skilled trades technical operationsfanuc teach pendantplc troubleshootingroboticsservo drives
TL;DR
For hands-on competence, look for evidence the candidate names controller families worked on, describes mastering a six-axis arm after gearbox swap, and cites tolerances held during tooling alignment. For safety discipline, look for evidence the candidate treats cell entry as a procedure: verifies energy isolation, keeps sole key control, and has refused to bypass an interlock under production pressure. 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

Hands-on competence

35% weight

Check hands-on work with specific platforms: FANUC, ABB or KUKA teach pendants, servo motor and harmonic drive replacement, encoder mastering, end effector alignment, and PLC I/O checks.

Evidence to listen for

  • Names the equipment, materials, and tolerances they work to
  • Can describe a job start to finish without hand-waving the hard parts
  • Holds the tickets, licences, or certifications the work requires, and they are current
  • Knows what they are not qualified to touch

Five-point scoring guide

1
Poor

Cannot describe the work concretely; lacks required tickets or licences.

2
Needs Improvement

Basic familiarity; needs supervision on routine tasks.

3
Satisfactory

Competent on standard work; slower or unsure on unfamiliar jobs.

4
Very Good

Skilled and independent across the normal range of the role.

5
Excellent

Names controller families worked on, describes mastering a six-axis arm after gearbox swap, and cites tolerances held during tooling alignment.

02
Evaluation factor

Safety discipline

30% weight

Probe lockout/tagout practice around robot cells, light curtain and safety mat verification, dual-channel E-stop testing, and how they enter a cell during teach mode at reduced speed.

Evidence to listen for

  • Treats procedure as protection rather than paperwork
  • Can describe a time they stopped work and why
  • Knows the specific hazards of this trade and the controls for each
  • Reports near misses instead of hiding them

Five-point scoring guide

1
Poor

Casual about safety; describes shortcuts with pride.

2
Needs Improvement

Follows procedure when watched; cannot name the hazards that matter.

3
Satisfactory

Sound safety habits; less certain on unfamiliar hazards.

4
Very Good

Safety is instinctive; can describe stopping work over a real concern.

5
Excellent

Treats cell entry as a procedure: verifies energy isolation, keeps sole key control, and has refused to bypass an interlock under production pressure.

03
Evaluation factor

Fault finding

20% weight

Test diagnosis of intermittent faults: repeated position errors, overtravel alarms, drifting vision pick accuracy, pneumatic gripper leaks. Ask how they read fault logs and isolate mechanical versus controls causes.

Evidence to listen for

  • Has a method for narrowing a fault rather than swapping parts
  • Reads schematics, manuals, or error codes and acts on them
  • Knows when to escalate rather than guess
  • Can describe a fault that took real work to find

Five-point scoring guide

1
Poor

Parts-swapper; no diagnostic method.

2
Needs Improvement

Fixes symptoms; cannot explain how they found the cause.

3
Satisfactory

Solid on familiar faults; less structured on new ones.

4
Very Good

Clear systematic method with a real hard-fault story.

5
Excellent

Walks an actual alarm code to root cause, distinguishes worn linear bearing from tuning issue, and explains what proved the fix stuck.

04
Evaluation factor

Reliability and conduct

15% weight

Assess shift conduct on a running line: response time to downtime calls, CMMS work order and PM record keeping, spare parts discipline, and handover notes to the next shift.

Evidence to listen for

  • Turns up, on time, prepared
  • Handles shift work, callouts, or travel as the role requires
  • Documents work so the next person can pick it up
  • Deals with customers or site staff professionally

Five-point scoring guide

1
Poor

Unreliable attendance; unprofessional on site.

2
Needs Improvement

Inconsistent; documentation is an afterthought.

3
Satisfactory

Dependable; paperwork is adequate.

4
Very Good

Consistently reliable, documents well, professional with customers.

5
Excellent

Cites downtime or MTTR figures they improved, logs work in the CMMS consistently, and is trusted on off-hours callouts and startups.

Evidence-led prompts

Interview questions for a Robotics Technician

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

  1. 01

    Can you elaborate on the kinds of robots you have worked with?

  2. 02

    Can you describe a project where you handled regular maintenance and troubleshooting of robots?

  3. 03

    Can you describe your experience with robot calibration and tuning?

  4. 04

    Can you explain a situation in which you had to diagnose and fix a malfunctioning robot?

  5. 05

    Describe a time when you had to use complex problem-solving skills during a project.

See the complete Robotics Technician 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