Interview Scorecard Template
"Weak hire." "Strong — great energy." Two interviewers, opposite conclusions, no evidence either way, and a debrief that becomes a contest of confidence rather than a comparison of candidates. Scorecards exist to end that: the same criteria for every candidate, a rating tied to quoted evidence, and a recommendation the panel can defend a month later. This interview scorecard template keeps the discipline that makes scorecards work — evidence written before ratings, scores submitted before the debrief, and a bias check that keeps the evaluation about the work. Use it alongside your interview notes (the full session record); the scorecard is the judgment layer that sits on top of them.
The interview scorecard template (copy-paste)
Blank template
INTERVIEW SCORECARD Candidate: Role / level: Interview round & focus: Interviewer: Date: RATING SCALE (rate on evidence, not impression) 4 — Strong evidence of the criterion, above the bar for the level 3 — Evidence meets the bar for the level 2 — Mixed or thin evidence; below the bar in part 1 — Evidence contradicts the criterion CRITERIA Criterion 1: ______________ Rating: _ Evidence (what the candidate said/did — quote or describe): Criterion 2: ______________ Rating: _ Evidence: Criterion 3: ______________ Rating: _ Evidence: Criterion 4: ______________ Rating: _ STRENGTHS (evidence-based) - RISKS / CONCERNS (evidence-based; mark unknowns as unknown) - QUESTIONS I COULD NOT ANSWER FROM THIS SESSION - BIAS CHECK - Did I rate any criterion on style, similarity to me, or school/ employer prestige rather than evidence? - Did I record anything unrelated to job performance? (If yes, delete it — it does not belong in an evaluation.) RECOMMENDATION [ ] Strong hire [ ] Hire [ ] Lean no [ ] Strong no Rationale in two sentences, citing evidence above:
The same template, filled in
Filled example
INTERVIEW SCORECARD Candidate: Alex Rivera Role / level: Senior Product Designer Interview round & focus: Round 2 — portfolio deep dive Interviewer: Hiring manager Date: Tuesday CRITERIA Criterion 1: Depth of design craft Rating: 4 Evidence: Walked through a checkout redesign end-to-end, including two discarded directions and the research that killed them. Explained type-scale decisions unprompted: "We cut a size because support tickets showed users misreading totals." Criterion 2: Systems thinking Rating: 3 Evidence: Described migrating 40+ screens to a component library; named the governance model (two approvers, monthly audit). Less specific on measuring the library's impact after launch. Criterion 3: Collaboration under conflict Rating: 3 Evidence: Recounted disagreeing with a PM on scope; resolved it by prototyping both options for a user test within the week rather than escalating. Could not give an example of pushing back on an executive. Criterion 4: Communication Rating: 4 Evidence: Adjusted explanation depth twice without being asked — skipped basics, expanded on rationale. Teach-back of the take-home critique was precise and kind about the other candidate work shown as an exercise. STRENGTHS (evidence-based) - Reasons from evidence, not taste; kills own work when data says so - Prototypes to settle disagreements instead of arguing RISKS / CONCERNS (evidence-based; mark unknowns as unknown) - Executive-level pushback: unknown — no example available this round; flag for the panel's final round - Library impact measurement was vague — could be the org's gap, not the candidate's QUESTIONS I COULD NOT ANSWER FROM THIS SESSION - How they run a design critique with junior designers (observe in the team exercise round) BIAS CHECK - Prestige check: previous employer is a famous brand; verified my craft rating cites the walkthrough, not the logo. - Nothing recorded unrelated to job performance. RECOMMENDATION [x] Hire Rationale: Craft and communication clearly above the bar on direct evidence; systems thinking meets the bar. The one unknown — executive pushback — is testable in the final round and is the only gap between Hire and Strong hire.
How to use this template well
Evidence first, ratings second, always. The form is deliberately ordered so you write what the candidate said and did before you are allowed a number. A rating written first will invent its evidence in the debrief; evidence written first makes the rating almost obvious — and makes disagreements between interviewers specific enough to resolve ("your criterion-2 evidence is thinner than mine" beats "I just had a good feeling").
Submit before the debrief. Independent scores are the entire point of a panel. Once the most senior voice speaks, every unscored interviewer quietly re-scores. Collect scorecards first, then discuss — and discuss the evidence gaps first, since half of all panel disagreements are two people who simply asked about different things.
Mark unknowns as unknown. "No example of executive pushback — untested" is a useful scorecard line; silence on the criterion reads as a pass. The risks section should distinguish negative evidence (the candidate did X poorly) from missing evidence (we never saw X) — panels that blur the two reject strong candidates for gaps in their own process.
The bias check is two questions, not a ceremony. Did anything get rated on similarity, style, or prestige? Did anything unrelated to job performance get written down? Scorecards are employment records: keep them factual, job-related, and free of anything you would not read aloud to the candidate — because in some jurisdictions and processes, candidates can in fact request them.
Calibrate quarterly, not per candidate. Every few months, the panel re-reads three past scorecards for people who were hired and asks one question: did the evidence predict the performance? Criteria that never predict anything get rewritten; rating inflation shows up immediately when 4s cluster on people who struggled.
FAQ
What is the difference between an interview scorecard and interview notes?
Notes are the record of the session — questions, answers, quotes, timeline. The scorecard is the judgment: criteria, ratings tied to evidence, and a recommendation. Panels that keep only notes relitigate impressions in the debrief; panels that keep only scores cannot defend them. Keep both, scorecard on top of notes, and write the scorecard from the notes the same day.
When should the scorecard be filled in?
Within a few hours of the interview, from your notes, before the debrief and before talking to other interviewers. Memory edits itself quickly: by the next day you will remember your conclusion vividly and your evidence vaguely — which is exactly backwards for a document whose job is to preserve evidence.
What if I disagree with the rest of the panel?
Disagree with evidence, in writing, on the scorecard — that is what it is for. "Lean no, because criterion 2 evidence was X" keeps the disagreement productive and auditable. What does not work is softening your score to match the room; a panel that always converges in the room has one opinion with four signatures.
How many criteria should a scorecard have?
Three to five, defined before the interview loop starts, with the rating anchors agreed by the panel. More than five and interviewers rate the candidate's personality five ways; fewer than three and real gaps hide inside averages. Criteria should come from the role's actual work — and stay fixed across all candidates for that role, or the scores cannot be compared.
