Interview scorecard template

Senior Android Developer interview scorecard

Evaluate Senior Android 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 Kotlin depth: coroutines and Flow cancellation, Jetpack Compose recomposition, lifecycle-aware components, Hilt or Koin injection, and how they handle background work with WorkManager. Use the rubric to compare role-specific evidence consistently.

See AI scoring
software dataandroidjetpack composekotlinmobile release
TL;DR
For technical proficiency, look for evidence the candidate explains structured concurrency scopes, recomposition triggers and stable keys precisely, citing specific code they wrote rather than generic Android theory. For systems and trade-offs, look for evidence the candidate weighs build times, APK size, crash-free rate and team skill against each choice, and names trade-offs they later regretted. 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 proficiency

35% weight

Probe Kotlin depth: coroutines and Flow cancellation, Jetpack Compose recomposition, lifecycle-aware components, Hilt or Koin injection, and how they handle background work with WorkManager.

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

Explains structured concurrency scopes, recomposition triggers and stable keys precisely, citing specific code they wrote rather than generic Android theory.

02
Evaluation factor

Systems and trade-offs

25% weight

Test architecture reasoning: MVVM versus MVI, single versus multi module Gradle builds, offline sync with Room, and when native beats Compose Multiplatform or React Native.

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

Weighs build times, APK size, crash-free rate and team skill against each choice, and names trade-offs they later regretted.

03
Evaluation factor

Evidence and rigour

25% weight

Assess measurement habits: Firebase Crashlytics triage, ANR and startup traces in Play Console vitals, baseline profiles, plus unit, Espresso and Compose UI test coverage.

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

Quotes real numbers: crash-free sessions percentage, cold start milliseconds, jank reduction, and how they proved a fix with staged rollouts.

04
Evaluation factor

Collaboration and communication

15% weight

Look for evidence of leading releases with designers, backend and QA: API contract negotiation, Play Store review rejections, code review standards, mentoring junior Android engineers.

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 shipping cadence, review feedback they gave, and a design or API disagreement resolved with data and a documented decision.

Evidence-led prompts

Interview questions for a Senior Android Developer

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

  1. 01

    Have you worked on applications with a large user base?

  2. 02

    Can you describe a challenging Android project you worked on and how you overcame the challenges?

  3. 03

    Do you have experience with the app store submission and review process?

  4. 04

    What is your experience with the Android SDK and modern tooling?

  5. 05

    Have you worked on a project that required you to deal with Android fragmentation?

See the complete Senior Android 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