Senior Frontend Engineer Interview Scorecard
ZYTHR Resources •
September 6, 2025
TL;DR
This scorecard standardizes evaluation of Senior Frontend Engineer candidates across technical craft, architecture, quality, performance, UX, collaboration, and leadership. It helps interviewers give consistent, evidence-based ratings to predict on-the-job success.
Who this scorecard is for
For hiring managers, tech leads, and interviewers evaluating senior frontend engineering candidates. Use during technical screens, take-home assessments, and on-site interviews to guide scoring and feedback.
Preview the Scorecard
See what the Senior Frontend Engineer Interview Scorecard looks like before you download it.
How to use and calibrate
- Pick the level (Junior, Mid, Senior, or Staff) and adjust anchor examples accordingly.
- Use the quick checklist during the call; fill the rubric within 30 minutes after.
- Or use ZYTHR to transcribe the interview and automatically fill in the scorecard live.
- Run monthly calibration with sample candidate answers to align expectations.
- Average across interviewers; avoid single-signal decisions.
Detailed rubric with anchor behaviors
Frontend Technical Skills
- 1–2: Struggles to implement basic React/JS features; frequent syntax or API misunderstandings.
- 3: Implements components and state with common patterns and few bugs.
- 4: Delivers reusable, well-structured components and leverages advanced framework features.
- 5: Designs complex client-side architectures and introduces patterns that increase team velocity.
Architecture & System Design
- 1–2: Fails to reason about component boundaries, data flow, or scaling concerns.
- 3: Designs clear component hierarchies and selects sensible state management.
- 4: Anticipates scalability and designs modular systems with clear contracts.
- 5: Defines architecture choices that reduce complexity and technical debt across teams.
Code Quality & Testing
- 1–2: Writes untested, hard-to-read code with minimal attention to maintainability.
- 3: Produces readable code with unit tests and follows linters/formatters.
- 4: Writes comprehensive tests, enforces standards, and performs meaningful code reviews.
- 5: Establishes testing strategy and improves code quality metrics across the codebase.
Performance & Optimization
- 1–2: Unaware of critical performance issues; delivers slow pages or heavy bundles.
- 3: Identifies and fixes common bottlenecks; uses lazy loading and basic optimizations.
- 4: Profiles apps, reduces bundle size, and implements caching strategies.
- 5: Defines performance budgets and drives cross-team optimizations with measurable results.
UX & Accessibility
- 1–2: Ignores accessibility and usability; components fail keyboard or screen reader checks.
- 3: Implements basic ARIA, semantic HTML, and responsive layouts.
- 4: Designs accessible interactions, conducts usability checks, and iterates on feedback.
- 5: Champions accessibility standards and integrates accessibility into development process.
Collaboration & Communication
- 1–2: Poor communicator; unclear PRs and resists feedback; blocks others.
- 3: Communicates clearly in PRs, participates in standups, and responds to feedback.
- 4: Facilitates cross-discipline discussions and aligns stakeholders on tradeoffs.
- 5: Drives technical discussions, mentors others through feedback, and resolves conflicts.
Mentorship & Ownership
- 1–2: Avoids ownership; does not mentor juniors or follow through on tasks.
- 3: Takes ownership of features and gives constructive feedback to peers.
- 4: Mentors teammates, improves team processes, and reliably delivers complex projects.
- 5: Shapes hiring, onboarding, and long-term frontend strategy; grows others into senior roles.
Scoring and weighting
Default weights (adjust per role):
| Dimension | Weight |
|---|---|
| Frontend Technical Skills | 25% |
| Architecture & System Design | 20% |
| Code Quality & Testing | 15% |
| Performance & Optimization | 12% |
| UX & Accessibility | 10% |
| Collaboration & Communication | 10% |
| Mentorship & Ownership | 8% |
Final score = weighted average across dimensions. Require at least two “4+” signals for Senior+ roles.
Complete Examples
Senior Frontend Engineer Scorecard — Great Candidate
| Dimension | Notes | Score (1–5) |
|---|---|---|
| Frontend Technical Skills | Creates reusable libraries/components adopted across projects | 5 |
| Architecture & System Design | Outlines architecture that simplifies cross-team integration | 5 |
| Code Quality & Testing | Adds testing infrastructure and raises team testing coverage | 5 |
| Performance & Optimization | Reduces load time significantly and enforces performance budgets | 5 |
| UX & Accessibility | Introduces accessibility checks and improves product-wide accessibility scores | 5 |
| Collaboration & Communication | Leads cross-team planning and removes blockers for others | 5 |
| Mentorship & Ownership | Regularly mentors and leads initiatives that increase team capacity | 5 |
Senior Frontend Engineer Scorecard — Good Candidate
| Dimension | Notes | Score (1–5) |
|---|---|---|
| Frontend Technical Skills | Builds components that meet requirements and pass tests | 3 |
| Architecture & System Design | Proposes a component structure and state solution fitting the problem | 3 |
| Code Quality & Testing | Well-structured code with unit tests and clear PR descriptions | 3 |
| Performance & Optimization | Implements code-splitting and reduces obvious bottlenecks | 3 |
| UX & Accessibility | Uses semantic HTML and addresses key accessibility issues | 3 |
| Collaboration & Communication | Writes clear PRs and discusses tradeoffs constructively | 3 |
| Mentorship & Ownership | Owns features end-to-end and helps peers when asked | 3 |
Senior Frontend Engineer Scorecard — No-Fit Candidate
| Dimension | Notes | Score (1–5) |
|---|---|---|
| Frontend Technical Skills | Cannot build a working interactive component within time | 1 |
| Architecture & System Design | Suggests tightly coupled designs that break at scale | 1 |
| Code Quality & Testing | No unit tests and inconsistent code style | 1 |
| Performance & Optimization | Produces pages with large bundle sizes and poor load times | 1 |
| UX & Accessibility | Components inaccessible to keyboard and screen readers | 1 |
| Collaboration & Communication | Does not respond to review comments and provides unclear updates | 1 |
| Mentorship & Ownership | Rarely volunteers for ownership or feedback | 1 |
Recruiter FAQs about this scorecard
Q: Do scorecards actually reduce bias?
A: Yes—when you use the same questions, anchored rubrics, and require evidence-based notes.
Q: How many dimensions should we score?
A: Stick to 6–8 core dimensions. More than 10 dilutes signal.
Q: How do we calibrate interviewers?
A: Run monthly sessions with sample candidate answers and compare scores.
Q: How do we handle candidates who spike in one area but are weak elsewhere?
A: Use weighted average but define non-negotiables.
Q: How should we adapt this for Junior vs. Senior roles?
A: Keep dimensions the same but raise expectations for Senior+.
Q: Does this work for take-home or live coding?
A: Yes. Apply the same dimensions, but adjust scoring criteria for context.
Q: Where should results live?
A: Store structured scores and notes in your ATS or ZYTHR.
Q: What if interviewers disagree widely?
A: Require written evidence, reconcile in debrief, or add a follow-up interview.
Q: Can this template be reused for other roles?
A: Yes. Swap technical dimensions for role-specific ones, keep collaboration and communication.
Q: Can ZYTHR auto-populate the scorecard?
A: Yes. ZYTHR can transcribe interviews, tag signals, and live-populate the scorecard.
See Live Scorecards in Action
ZYTHR is not only a resume-screening took, it also automatically transcribes interviews and live-populates scorecards, giving your team a consistent view of every candidate in real time.