We run the same structured, scored interview for every engineer: a fast screen, a level-appropriate technical deep-dive, a real work sample, and an explicit communication check — each rated before we compare notes. It is unglamorous, and it is why our clients can skip screening entirely.
Most hiring processes fail not because the questions are bad but because they are inconsistent. Two interviewers ask different things, score nothing, and reconcile a “vibe” in the debrief. Here is how we do it instead — the process behind every engineer we embed or put on a build.
The principles
Structured over conversational
Every candidate for a role gets the same core questions in the same order. That is the single biggest lever on predictive validity — a structured interview forecasts job performance far better than an open chat, because you are comparing like with like instead of comparing how much you liked someone.
Scored before the debrief
Each interviewer commits to a rating per question before the group talks. It stops the loudest voice from anchoring the room and turns “I think they were good” into evidence. We use the same scorecard you can use here.
Level-appropriate, not one-size-fits-all
The question that stretches a junior is a warm-up for a senior. We calibrate depth to the level we are hiring for, so a strong junior is not failed for lacking staff-level architecture instincts, and a senior is not passed for reciting fundamentals.
Work samples over trivia
The best predictor of whether someone can do the job is watching them do a small version of it. We weight a practical exercise — reading code, debugging, or pairing on a real problem — above closed-book recall.
The stages
Screen (30 min)
A structured conversation to confirm the basics: relevant experience, communication, and a handful of fundamentals for the stack. Cheap to run, quick to rule out.
Technical deep-dive (60 min)
Level-appropriate questions on the target stack — the kind in our question banks — probing not just the answer but the reasoning and the tradeoffs behind it.
Work sample (60–90 min)
A realistic exercise: debugging a failing test, extending a small codebase, or pairing on a problem. We look at how they navigate unfamiliar code, not whether they memorised an algorithm.
Communication & ownership
Because we embed engineers into other people’s teams, we explicitly assess whether someone asks clarifying questions, pushes back on shaky requirements, and explains their thinking — the traits that separate an embedded engineer from a ticket-taker.
What we assess by level
| Level | Depth we expect | The signal we look for |
|---|---|---|
| Junior | Solid fundamentals; writes correct, readable code with guidance. | Learns fast, asks good questions, does not fake understanding. |
| Mid | Owns features end to end; understands the framework’s model, not just its API. | Reasons about tradeoffs; anticipates edge cases and failure modes. |
| Senior | Architects systems; makes and defends design decisions at scale. | Thinks in tradeoffs and second-order effects; raises the bar for the team around them. |
Frequently asked questions
How do you vet developers?
With a structured, scored process: a screen, a level-appropriate technical deep-dive, a realistic work sample, and an explicit communication and ownership check. Every interviewer rates each answer before the debrief, so the decision rests on evidence rather than a gut feel.
Why is a structured interview better?
Because it measures every candidate the same way. Decades of hiring research show structured, scored interviews predict on-the-job performance far more reliably than unstructured conversations, which are heavily swayed by rapport and first impressions.
Can I use your interview process for my own hiring?
Yes. Our question banks and free scorecard tool are exactly what we use, adapted for you to run. If you would rather not, we can embed vetted engineers into your team or build the product for you.