Interview scorecard template

UX/UI Intern interview scorecard

Evaluate UX/UI Intern candidates across 4 weighted areas: portfolio, craft and rationale, feedback and iteration, and working with the brief. Portfolio leads at 35%, so ask for two or three case studies: coursework, hackathon, or club redesigns. Look for wireframes, user flows, and Figma prototypes, not just polished dribbble-style screens. Use the rubric to compare role-specific evidence consistently.

See AI scoring
design visual communicationdesign systemsfigmaux researchwireframing
TL;DR
For portfolio, look for evidence the candidate shows end to end cases with problem framing, flows, mid-fidelity wireframes, and a clickable prototype they can walk through unaided. For craft and rationale, look for evidence the candidate explains specific choices (8pt grid, 4.5:1 contrast, component variants) and names the user problem each decision solves. 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

Portfolio

35% weight

Ask for two or three case studies: coursework, hackathon, or club redesigns. Look for wireframes, user flows, and Figma prototypes, not just polished dribbble-style screens.

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 cases with problem framing, flows, mid-fidelity wireframes, and a clickable prototype they can walk through unaided.

02
Evaluation factor

Craft and rationale

25% weight

Probe Figma fluency: auto layout, components, variants, constraints. Check they can justify type scale, contrast ratios against WCAG AA, and spacing decisions in their own screens.

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 specific choices (8pt grid, 4.5:1 contrast, component variants) and names the user problem each decision solves.

03
Evaluation factor

Feedback and iteration

25% weight

Test how they handled critique from a tutor, mentor, or usability test. Look for before and after screens and evidence of usability findings changing the design.

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 concrete feedback or test observations from five users, then shows the revised screens and what improved.

04
Evaluation factor

Working with the brief

15% weight

Judge how they scope work under constraints: a brief with fixed deadline, existing design system, or developer handoff via Figma dev mode and annotated specs.

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

Asks clarifying questions about users and constraints, respects existing system components, and hands off with clear annotations and states.

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