interview-architect

---

name: interview-architect description: Designs interview process: rubric, panel composition, scoring framework, and interview loop format. Outputs interview-process-{role}.md with question bank and scoring guide. allowed-tools: Read, Write effort: medium

When to activate

Before scheduling first round of interviews. Defines interview rubric, panel, format, and evaluation criteria for consistent, defensible hiring decisions.

When NOT to use

Not for candidate evaluation — that happens during interviews. Not for individual interviewer feedback loops (use the rubric after interviews). Not for onboarding or post-hire assessment.

Interview Architecture Checklist

Execute in order:

1. Define evaluation dimensions — 4–5 key competencies (technical, leadership, collaboration, etc.) needed for success in role
2. Weight each dimension — How much does each matter? (e.g., technical 40%, leadership 30%, collaboration 20%, communication 10%)
3. Create rubric — For each dimension, define 5-level scale (Needs Improvement, Below Expectations, Meets, Exceeds, Exceptional) with concrete examples
4. Design interview loop — Choose 4–5 interviews covering different dimensions (technical screen, system design, behavioral, etc.)
5. Assign panel composition — Who interviews (engineers, manager, etc.) and what they evaluate
6. Write question bank — 2–3 starter questions per dimension; include follow-ups and probes
7. Define pass/fail criteria — What constitutes "hire" vs. "no hire" decision
8. Define scoring process — How do interviewers record feedback; how is final decision made

Evaluation Dimensions & Competency Definitions

Technical Competency (40% weight for IC roles)

Definition: Demonstrated mastery of required technologies and problem-solving approach; ability to write correct, maintainable code; depth of understanding of trade-offs.

5-level rubric:

Level	Descriptor	Example
1: Needs Improvement	Struggles with basic concepts; makes logical errors; incomplete solutions	Can't design a solution; code has off-by-one errors or logic flaws
2: Below Expectations	Understands fundamentals; gets partial solution; misses edge cases or optimization	Correct basic approach but inefficient; doesn't consider trade-offs
3: Meets Expectations	Correct solution; handles main cases + most edge cases; aware of trade-offs	Working code with reasonable efficiency; explains approach clearly
4: Exceeds Expectations	Correct, optimized solution; anticipates edge cases; communicates trade-offs and alternatives	Clean code; efficient; asks clarifying questions; suggests alternatives
5: Exceptional	Expert-level: correct, optimized, edge cases; proactive improvements; teaches interviewer	Not just solves problem — finds elegant approach; mentors interviewer on approach

Leadership & Ownership (25% weight for Senior IC+)

Definition: Takes ownership; drives decisions; accountable for outcomes; influences without authority; learns from failures.

5-level rubric:

Level	Descriptor	Example
1: Needs Improvement	Waits for direction; blames others; reactive to problems	"I did what my manager asked" — no proactive contribution
2: Below Expectations	Accepts tasks; somewhat accountable; limited initiative	Completes assigned work; reactive to problems; limited follow-through
3: Meets Expectations	Owns project outcomes; drives some decisions; accountable; learns from setbacks	"I led the [project] and shipped it on time" — explains decisions and trade-offs
4: Exceeds Expectations	Proactive; influences others; takes calculated risks; resilient; drives improvement	"I identified the bottleneck, proposed solution, aligned team, shipped"
5: Exceptional	Strategic thinker; shapes roadmap; builds teams; handles ambiguity; inspires others	"I saw the architectural gap, evangelized the fix, built the team, shipped, mentored 2 juniors"

Collaboration & Communication (20%)

Definition: Works well with others; explains thinking clearly; listens; builds trust; navigates disagreement constructively.

5-level rubric:

Level	Descriptor	Example
1: Needs Improvement	Dismisses input; unclear communication; difficult to work with	Interrupts interviewer; defensive about feedback
2: Below Expectations	Communicates with effort; somewhat collaborative; conflicts not always resolved	Explains some decisions but vague; doesn't ask for input
3: Meets Expectations	Clear communication; solicits input; resolves conflicts constructively; builds trust	Explains reasoning; listens to interviewer; handles feedback well
4: Exceeds Expectations	Excellent communicator; seeks diverse input; bridges disagreements; strong influence	Articulate; asks good questions; turns conflict into alignment
5: Exceptional	Exceptional listener; bridges silos; creates psychological safety; influences through trust	Interviewer feels heard; asks insightful questions; collaborative energy

Learning Agility (15%)

Definition: Reflects on feedback; adapts; admits gaps; seeks growth; becomes competent quickly in new domains.

5-level rubric:

Level	Descriptor	Example
1: Needs Improvement	Defensive about feedback; repeats mistakes; no growth mindset	"I don't think that's an issue" when feedback given
2: Below Expectations	Accepts feedback intellectually; slow to adapt; limited reflection	"OK, I'll try that" but doesn't seem genuinely open
3: Meets Expectations	Reflects on feedback; applies lessons; seeks growth opportunities	"I learned from that failure" with specific example
4: Exceeds Expectations	Proactively seeks feedback; reflects deeply; adapts quickly; grows	"I was wrong about [X]; here's what I learned and changed"
5: Exceptional	Learns from every experience; deeply self-aware; rapidly masters new domains	Articulates growth trajectory with specific lessons and evolution

---

Interview Loop Design

Standard 5-Interview Loop (Senior Engineer)

Interview	Duration	Interviewer	Focus	Decision
1. Phone Screen	30 min	Recruiter + Engineer	Background, interest, baseline technical	Move forward or pass
2. Technical Screen	90 min	1 Engineer	Coding, problem-solving, trade-off analysis	Technical competency assessment
3. System Design	90 min	2 Senior Engineers	Architecture, scalability, trade-off decisions	Technical depth + leadership
4. Behavioral	60 min	Manager	Collaboration, ownership, learning, motivation	Fit + culture + values
5. Executive (optional)	45 min	Director or VP	Strategic thinking, vision, leadership potential	Final fit + future growth

Total time investment: ~5.5 hours (including prep/feedback)

---

Question Bank & Evaluation Guide

Technical Screen Questions

Problem 1: Coding Challenge (60 min)

• Starter: "Design a rate limiter for an API. Constraint: handle 10K requests/sec with <10ms latency."
• Dimensions evaluated: Problem-solving, communication, optimization, edge cases
• Probes:
  • "What if we need to handle distributed systems?" (scales problem; tests system design thinking)
  • "What are trade-offs in your approach?" (tests trade-off awareness)
  • "How would you test this?" (tests quality mindset)

Scorer evaluates:

• Correct solution (baseline)
• Handles edge cases (duplicate requests, clock skew)
• Optimization (efficient data structure, time/space trade-offs)
• Communication (explains thinking, asks clarifying questions)

---

System Design Questions

Problem: Design Recommendation Engine

Starter: "Design a real-time recommendation system for 1M daily active users. Requirements: personalized recommendations, <500ms latency, 99.9% uptime."

Dimensions: Architecture, trade-offs, scalability, reliability

Interviewer probes:

• "How would you handle 10x growth?" (scalability thinking)
• "What if one service goes down?" (reliability; disaster recovery)
• "How do you measure success?" (metrics; ownership mentality)

Scoring:

• 5: Proposes robust, scalable architecture; anticipates problems; explains trade-offs
• 4: Correct architecture; handles most challenges; good trade-off analysis
• 3: Reasonable design; misses some edge cases or optimization opportunities
• 2: Design has gaps; doesn't handle scale well; weak trade-off analysis
• 1: Fundamentally flawed or incomplete design

---

Behavioral Questions

Question 1: Ownership & Accountability

• "Tell us about a project where you took full ownership. What made it successful? What did you learn?"
• Follow-ups:
  • "What if you had failed? What would have been your responsibility?"
  • "How did you handle stakeholders/disagreement?"
• What to listen for:
  • Specific example (not vague)
  • Clear ownership; not deflecting blame
  • Learning from experience; reflection

Question 2: Collaboration & Conflict

• "Tell us about a time you disagreed with someone (manager, peer). How did you handle it?"
• Follow-ups:
  • "Did you change your mind or stand firm? Why?"
  • "What did they say afterwards?"
• What to listen for:
  • Handled respectfully; not win/lose mentality
  • Open to input; willing to change mind
  • Resolution-focused

Question 3: Learning Agility

• "Tell us about something you were terrible at when you started your current role. How did you get good?"
• Follow-ups:
  • "Who helped you? What resources?"
  • "How long did it take?"
• What to listen for:
  • Honest self-assessment (shows self-awareness)
  • Specific growth trajectory
  • Sought help/feedback (learning mindset)

---

Interview Score Template

# Interview Feedback — [Candidate] — [Role]

**Interviewer:** [Name]
**Date:** [YYYY-MM-DD]
**Interview Type:** [Phone Screen / Technical / System Design / Behavioral]

---

## Evaluation Dimensions

### Technical Competency (IF APPLICABLE)
**Score:** [1–5]
**Evidence:** [Specific examples from interview]
**Notes:** [Strengths, gaps, red flags]

### Leadership & Ownership
**Score:** [1–5]
**Evidence:** [Story they told; how they framed accountability]
**Notes:** [Shown initiative? Owned outcomes?]

### Collaboration & Communication
**Score:** [1–5]
**Evidence:** [How they listened, asked questions, explained thinking]
**Notes:** [Clear communicator? Collaborative?]

### Learning Agility
**Score:** [1–5]
**Evidence:** [How they discussed growth, feedback, failures]
**Notes:** [Growth mindset? Receptive to feedback?]

---

## Overall Assessment

**Hire / No Hire / Maybe (discuss with team)**

**One-sentence summary:** [What stands out?]

**Concerns (if any):** [Gaps, risks, questions for next interviewer]

**Recommendation for next round:** [If advancing, what should next interviewer probe?]

---

---

Final Hiring Decision Framework

Calibration Meeting (after all interviews)

Interviewing team meets to align on candidate. Use this framework:

Each interviewer scores: 1–5 on each dimension (or Hire/No Hire)

Aggregate: Average score across interviewers

Threshold:

• 3.5+: Strong hire candidate; move to offer
• 3.0–3.5: Good candidate; discuss trade-offs
• 2.5–3.0: Borderline; need more info or next-round interview
• <2.5: Pass; not right fit

Override clause: Any strong "No Hire" from manager should result in pass (not hire).

Offer Decision

Once Hire threshold met:

1. Check internal compression (compensation-analyzer skill)
2. Reference check (if applicable)
3. Background check (if applicable)
4. Offer creation (compensation-analyzer skill)
5. Offer presentation and close

---

Red Flags During Interviews

Stop interview early and escalate if you observe:

• Discriminatory language: Comments about age, race, gender, national origin, disability, etc. → Escalate to legal/HR immediately.
• Dishonesty: Resume claims that don't match; gaps in story → Document and discuss with hiring manager.
• Hostility or unprofessionalism: Aggressive, dismissive, rude behavior → Document; likely No Hire.
• Inability to handle feedback: Gets defensive when asked probing questions → Note; may struggle with feedback culture.

---