Evaluate XR (Extended Reality) 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 check hands-on depth in Unity or Unreal with OpenXR: C# or C++ interaction code, XR Interaction Toolkit, hand tracking, spatial anchors, shader and material. Use the rubric to compare role-specific evidence consistently.
For technical proficiency, look for evidence the candidate names specific SDKs, headsets and rendering paths worked with, and explains code they wrote for grab, gaze or locomotion systems. For systems and trade-offs, look for evidence the candidate quotes real GPU and CPU frame times, describes what was cut to hit budget, and weighs visual fidelity against comfort deliberately.
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
Check hands-on depth in Unity or Unreal with OpenXR: C# or C++ interaction code, XR Interaction Toolkit, hand tracking, spatial anchors, shader and material work for mobile GPUs.
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
Names specific SDKs, headsets and rendering paths worked with, and explains code they wrote for grab, gaze or locomotion systems.
02
Evaluation factor
Systems and trade-offs
25% weight
Probe frame budget decisions: holding 72 or 90 Hz on Quest standalone, single-pass instanced stereo, draw call and overdraw reduction, baked versus real-time lighting, foveated rendering trade-offs.
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
Quotes real GPU and CPU frame times, describes what was cut to hit budget, and weighs visual fidelity against comfort deliberately.
03
Evaluation factor
Evidence and rigour
25% weight
Assess how they measured comfort and performance: OVR Metrics Tool, RenderDoc, Unity Profiler captures, simulator sickness questionnaires, playtest sessions, crash and retention data from store builds.
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
Cites before and after numbers from profiling tools plus user comfort feedback that changed a locomotion or UI decision.
04
Evaluation factor
Collaboration and communication
15% weight
Look for work with artists, 3D modellers, hardware teams and clients: polygon and texture budgets negotiated, build handoffs, store submission reviews, on-headset demo sessions with non-technical stakeholders.
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 setting asset budgets with artists and running headset demos where stakeholder feedback was translated into concrete backlog changes.
Evidence-led prompts
Interview questions for a XR (Extended Reality) Developer
Use these prompts to surface evidence for the weighted factors above and compare candidates against the same role-specific criteria.
01
What type of extended reality applications have you developed?
02
Can you discuss a challenging project you worked on and how you overcame the difficulties?
03
Can you discuss developing for different headsets and hardware?
04
Can you describe your experience with the engine you work in most?
05
How familiar are you with the alternative major engine?
