Resource
A mock interview feedback rubric for every round
Scorecards for coding, system design, technical and behavioral mock interviews, with what a low and a high score sound like, a six-step hire signal and a written-feedback template you can copy. They are the same criteria the InnerViewHub interview room uses.
By the InnerViewHub team · Updated October 9, 2026
The 1–5 scale
Score each criterion on its own, using what you saw in this session only.
| Score | Meaning |
|---|---|
| 1 | Not shown, or a clear problem that would end a real interview. |
| 2 | Attempted, with significant gaps; needed a direct hint to progress. |
| 3 | Solid with some gaps; needed a nudge, not the answer. |
| 4 | Strong and independent; small gaps only. |
| 5 | Excellent; the interviewer would hold this up as an example. |
Coding (problem solving)
For algorithm and data structure rounds in a shared editor.
| Criterion | What it measures | Sounds like a 2 | Sounds like a 5 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Communication | Explained their thinking clearly and asked good clarifying questions | Coded in silence; the interviewer had to ask what they were doing. | Thought out loud, checked assumptions, and the interviewer was never lost. |
| Problem solving | Broke the problem down and found a sound approach | Jumped into code, then rewrote it twice; needed a direct hint. | Compared two approaches with their complexity before writing anything. |
| Correctness | The solution works, including edge cases | Worked on the example only; failed on empty input or duplicates. | Handled the edge cases named at the start, without prompting. |
| Code quality | Readable, well-structured code with good naming | One long function, names like tmp2, repeated logic. | Small functions, clear names; easy to read on first pass. |
| Testing | Tested the code and reasoned about complexity | Ran the code and hoped; couldn’t state the complexity. | Traced an example by hand, then tested edge cases and stated time and space. |
System design
For architecture rounds on a whiteboard.
| Criterion | What it measures | Sounds like a 2 | Sounds like a 5 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Communication | Explained their thinking clearly and asked good clarifying questions | Drew boxes without explaining them; hard to follow. | Narrated the design and kept checking the interviewer was with them. |
| Requirements | Clarified functional and non-functional requirements and scale | Started drawing immediately; never asked about scale. | Separated functional from non-functional needs and estimated load out loud. |
| High-level design | Sensible components, data flow and APIs | Missing core pieces (storage, how data gets there). | Clear components, data flow and APIs that match the requirements. |
| Deep dive | Went deep on the hard parts: data model, bottlenecks, failure modes | Stayed at the box level when pushed on a bottleneck. | Went into the data model, a hot spot and a failure mode with specifics. |
| Trade-offs | Weighed alternatives and justified decisions | One option presented as the only option. | Named alternatives, what each costs, and why they chose one. |
Technical (mixed)
For rounds that mix coding, fundamentals and design questions.
| Criterion | What it measures | Sounds like a 2 | Sounds like a 5 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Communication | Explained their thinking clearly and asked good clarifying questions | Answers were hard to follow or off topic. | Clear, structured answers with the reasoning visible. |
| Problem solving | Found a sound approach to the problems | Needed heavy guidance to find any approach. | Found a sound approach independently and adapted to follow-ups. |
| Technical depth | Solid fundamentals and knowledge | Knew terms but not how things work underneath. | Explained the mechanism, not just the name, and its limits. |
| Code quality | Readable, well-structured code | Hard to read, inconsistent structure. | Readable and well structured, even under time pressure. |
| Design | Reasoned well about architecture and trade-offs | Didn’t consider how parts fit together. | Reasoned about architecture and the trade-offs of their choices. |
Behavioral / HR
For conversation-based rounds about past experience.
| Criterion | What it measures | Sounds like a 2 | Sounds like a 5 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Communication | Explained their thinking clearly and asked good clarifying questions | Long, wandering answers; the point arrived late or never. | Concise answers, under three minutes, with the point up front. |
| Structure | Answers followed a clear structure (e.g. STAR) | Missing the situation or the result. | Situation, task, action and result were all clear, without sounding scripted. |
| Impact | Showed concrete results and ownership | “We did…” throughout; their own role was unclear. | Concrete results and what they personally owned. |
| Self-awareness | Reflected on mistakes and what they learned | Couldn’t name a real mistake. | Described a real mistake, its cost, and what they do differently now. |
| Motivation & fit | Clear motivation and alignment with the role | Generic reasons that would fit any company. | Specific reasons tied to the role and their own goals. |
The overall hire signal
After scoring the criteria, the interviewer commits to one overall signal. Answer the question “if this were the real interview, would I want them on the team?”, not an average of the scores.
- Strong hire
- Hire
- Lean hire
- Lean no hire
- No hire
- Strong no hire
There is deliberately no neutral middle option: “lean hire” or “lean no hire” forces a decision, which is what makes the signal useful.
Rating the interviewer
Peer practice works both ways. The candidate rates the interviewer from 1 to 5 on:
| Criterion | What it measures |
|---|---|
| Clarity | Explained the problem and expectations clearly |
| Helpfulness | Gave useful hints and actionable feedback |
| Professionalism | Kind, respectful and well prepared |
Written feedback template
Copy this into your notes, fill it in before you talk, then walk the candidate through it.
Round: ___________ Date: ___________ Interviewer: ___________ Scores (1–5) ___________________ _ ___________________ _ ___________________ _ ___________________ _ ___________________ _ Hire signal: Strong hire / Hire / Lean hire / Lean no hire / No hire / Strong no hire What went well (with timestamps) 1. 2. What to improve next time (most important first) 1. 2. Hints needed: none / question / nudge / direct hint
How to use the rubric well
- Score alone, before discussing; the conversation will pull your scores toward the middle.
- Back every score of 2 or below with a moment from the session (“at minute 14…”).
- Compare scores across several sessions, not one. A trend in a single criterion is the most useful thing a rubric tells you.
- Read the guide to running a mock interview with a friend for timings, hint rules and how to deliver the feedback.
Use the rubric without the paperwork
In an InnerViewHub room, the scorecard for the round you picked opens as soon as the interview ends, and your reviews build up over time.