Interview scorecard template

Video Editor interview scorecard

Evaluate Video Editor candidates across 4 weighted areas: portfolio, craft and rationale, feedback and iteration, and working with the brief. Portfolio leads at 35%, so ask for a reel plus links to full cuts: YouTube long form, brand spots, documentary, social verticals. Check runtimes, view counts, retention data, and what they personally. Use the rubric to compare role-specific evidence consistently.

See AI scoring
design visual communicationcolor gradingdavinci resolvemotion graphicspremiere pro
TL;DR
For portfolio, look for evidence the candidate shows finished pieces across formats, names their exact contribution, and cites retention curves or client results tied to specific cuts. For craft and rationale, look for evidence the candidate explains cut-by-cut reasoning, names node trees or LUT choices, and handles round-tripping between Premiere, After Effects, and Resolve fluently. 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 a reel plus links to full cuts: YouTube long form, brand spots, documentary, social verticals. Check runtimes, view counts, retention data, and what they personally edited versus directed.

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 finished pieces across formats, names their exact contribution, and cites retention curves or client results tied to specific cuts.

02
Evaluation factor

Craft and rationale

25% weight

Probe editing craft: pacing decisions, J and L cuts, multicam sync, color grading in Resolve, audio sweetening, and proxy workflows for 4K or RAW footage.

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 cut-by-cut reasoning, names node trees or LUT choices, and handles round-tripping between Premiere, After Effects, and Resolve fluently.

03
Evaluation factor

Feedback and iteration

25% weight

Test how they absorb notes: Frame.io comment rounds, client change requests late in the timeline, and how many revision cycles a typical project took.

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

Describes managing versioned cuts, pushing back with evidence on notes that hurt pacing, and closing rounds without rework spirals.

04
Evaluation factor

Working with the brief

15% weight

Look for brief interrogation: platform aspect ratios, runtime caps, brand tone, subtitle and accessibility requirements, and delivery specs like codec, bitrate, and loudness targets.

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

Clarifies deliverables upfront, hits LUFS and codec specs without reminders, and adapts a master cut into platform-specific versions independently.

Evidence-led prompts

Interview questions for a Video Editor

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

  1. 01

    Can you share examples of video projects you have edited, and say what you personally did on each?

  2. 02

    Can you describe your workflow when you receive raw footage?

  3. 03

    What types of video content are you most experienced with?

  4. 04

    Which video editing software are you most proficient in?

  5. 05

    Do you have experience in sound editing and colour grading?

See the complete Video Editor 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