Interview scorecard template

Security Operations Center (SOC) Analyst interview scorecard

Evaluate Security Operations Center (SOC) Analyst candidates across 4 weighted areas: technical depth, real incidents and findings, risk judgement, and getting things fixed. Technical depth leads at 35%, so probe log sources, host and network fundamentals, and whether they can investigate beyond the alert's own summary. Use the rubric to compare role-specific evidence consistently.

See AI scoring
security compliancecybersecurityincident responsesiemsoc
TL;DR
For technical depth, look for evidence the candidate investigates from raw logs and host artefacts rather than trusting the alert summary, with real technical grounding. For real incidents and findings, look for evidence the candidate names incidents they worked to containment, with the detection or process change that came out of the review. 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 depth

35% weight

Probe log sources, host and network fundamentals, and whether they can investigate beyond the alert's own summary.

Evidence to listen for

  • Command of the specific attack surface, tooling, and controls the role covers
  • Understands how the underlying system works, not just how the tool reports on it
  • Can explain an attack or control chain end to end
  • Distinguishes what they found themselves from what a scanner flagged

Five-point scoring guide

1
Poor

Tool operator only; no understanding of the systems underneath.

2
Needs Improvement

Runs tooling but cannot explain findings or how the attack works.

3
Satisfactory

Solid working knowledge; depth thins outside familiar tooling.

4
Very Good

Strong command of the domain; explains attack and control chains clearly.

5
Excellent

Investigates from raw logs and host artefacts rather than trusting the alert summary, with real technical grounding.

02
Evaluation factor

Real incidents and findings

30% weight

Look for incidents they personally worked through to containment, and what the post-incident review changed.

Evidence to listen for

  • Brings specific incidents, findings, or audits they personally worked
  • States their own role rather than the team's
  • Describes what was actually at risk and what changed afterwards
  • Can talk about a finding that turned out to be wrong

Five-point scoring guide

1
Poor

No hands-on work; knowledge is entirely certification or coursework.

2
Needs Improvement

Limited exposure; cannot describe their contribution to an incident.

3
Satisfactory

Real casework with adequate detail; ownership sometimes vague.

4
Very Good

Specific incidents with clear personal scope and what changed after.

5
Excellent

Names incidents they worked to containment, with the detection or process change that came out of the review.

03
Evaluation factor

Risk judgement

20% weight

Test triage judgement: how they decide what is a real incident when the queue is long and most alerts are noise.

Evidence to listen for

  • Prioritises by actual exploitability and business impact, not raw severity scores
  • Can argue for accepting a risk as well as fixing it
  • Knows the difference between a finding and a problem
  • Does not cry wolf or wave things through

Five-point scoring guide

1
Poor

Treats every finding as critical, or waves real risk through.

2
Needs Improvement

Follows severity scores mechanically; no business context.

3
Satisfactory

Reasonable prioritisation; less confident arguing for risk acceptance.

4
Very Good

Prioritises by exploitability and impact; can justify accepting a risk.

5
Excellent

Triages accurately under queue pressure, and can name an alert they wrongly closed and what they changed after.

04
Evaluation factor

Getting things fixed

15% weight

Assess escalation and handover quality on a live incident crossing a shift boundary.

Evidence to listen for

  • Writes findings engineers can act on rather than a wall of output
  • Has persuaded a team to fix something they did not want to fix
  • Explains risk to executives in business terms
  • Works with the org rather than policing it

Five-point scoring guide

1
Poor

Adversarial with engineering; findings never get fixed.

2
Needs Improvement

Reports are unactionable; no influence beyond raising tickets.

3
Satisfactory

Adequate reporting; relies on mandate rather than persuasion.

4
Very Good

Actionable findings and a real record of getting fixes shipped.

5
Excellent

Escalates with calibrated urgency and hands over live incidents completely, including what is still unknown.

Evidence-led prompts

Interview questions for a Security Operations Center (SOC) Analyst

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

  1. 01

    Which SIEM have you used hands-on, and what did a normal shift in that console look like for you?

  2. 02

    How proficient are you with firewalls, IDS/IPS, EDR, and antivirus consoles day to day?

  3. 03

    Have you created your own detection rules, searches, or reports to catch intrusion attempts?

  4. 04

    What scripting or programming do you use in your analysis work, and on what?

  5. 05

    How familiar are you with investigating alerts in cloud environments like AWS, Azure, or Google Cloud?

See the complete Security Operations Center (SOC) Analyst 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