Software Architect Interview Scorecard
ZYTHR Resources •
September 11, 2025
TL;DR
A practical scorecard to evaluate candidates for a Software Architect role, aligning technical mastery with team and delivery impact. It focuses on observable design, leadership, and execution behaviors to guide consistent hiring decisions.
Who this scorecard is for
Intended for hiring managers, tech leads, and senior recruiters assessing senior/principal-level architects. Use during technical interviews and debriefs to calibrate evaluations across teams.
Preview the Scorecard
See what the Software Architect 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
System & Solution Architecture
- 1–2: Produces incomplete or inconsistent designs and misses major requirements or constraints.
- 3: Delivers clear component diagrams and addresses primary requirements and trade-offs.
- 4: Creates modular, extensible architectures and documents interactions, APIs, and failure modes.
- 5: Defines long-term architecture strategy, anticipates cross-system impacts, and sets standards.
Technical Leadership & Decision Making
- 1–2: Avoids owning decisions or cannot justify choices with evidence.
- 3: Makes defensible decisions and explains trade-offs when asked.
- 4: Drives decisions, balances short/long-term needs, and gains stakeholder buy-in.
- 5: Leads cross-team strategy, mentors others on decisions, and influences technical direction.
Scalability & Performance
- 1–2: Ignores capacity, bottlenecks, or provides solutions that won't scale.
- 3: Identifies likely bottlenecks and suggests pragmatic scaling approaches.
- 4: Designs for throughput and latency targets with measurable metrics and mitigations.
- 5: Anticipates scale limits, defines capacity plans, and optimizes cost-performance trade-offs.
Code Quality & Maintainability
- 1–2: Proposes brittle or opaque implementations and neglects testing or modularity.
- 3: Advocates for readable code, tests, and reasonable layering.
- 4: Designs for observability, testability, and clear module boundaries.
- 5: Establishes coding standards, review patterns, and measurable quality goals.
Security & Compliance
- 1–2: Overlooks common security controls and compliance constraints.
- 3: Identifies relevant security risks and recommends standard mitigations.
- 4: Integrates threat models, data protection, and access controls into designs.
- 5: Proactively embeds compliance requirements and drives risk-reduction programs.
Collaboration & Communication
- 1–2: Communicates unclearly and fails to engage stakeholders or incorporate feedback.
- 3: Explains designs clearly to engineers and accepts reasonable feedback.
- 4: Facilitates cross-functional discussions and resolves conflicts on trade-offs.
- 5: Aligns multiple teams, evangelizes architecture, and mentors peers effectively.
Delivery & Execution
- 1–2: Proposes designs that are impractical to deliver or ignores delivery constraints.
- 3: Balances design with delivery timelines and proposes phased implementations.
- 4: Breaks work into deliverable increments and defines acceptance criteria.
- 5: Orchestrates roadmaps, removes blockers, and ensures reliable delivery of architecture goals.
Scoring and weighting
Default weights (adjust per role):
| Dimension | Weight |
|---|---|
| System & Solution Architecture | 25% |
| Technical Leadership & Decision Making | 20% |
| Scalability & Performance | 15% |
| Code Quality & Maintainability | 10% |
| Security & Compliance | 8% |
| Collaboration & Communication | 12% |
| Delivery & Execution | 10% |
Final score = weighted average across dimensions. Require at least two “4+” signals for Senior+ roles.
Complete Examples
Software Architect Scorecard — Great Candidate
| Dimension | Notes | Score (1–5) |
|---|---|---|
| System & Solution Architecture | Proposes a strategic architecture with migration plan | 5 |
| Technical Leadership & Decision Making | Champions an approach and secures cross-team alignment | 5 |
| Scalability & Performance | Specifies metrics, thresholds, and cost-effective scaling plan | 5 |
| Code Quality & Maintainability | Defines standards and CI practices for sustainment | 5 |
| Security & Compliance | Provides threat model and compliance alignment steps | 5 |
| Collaboration & Communication | Leads cross-team design reviews and consensus | 5 |
| Delivery & Execution | Delivers roadmap and removes cross-team blockers | 5 |
Software Architect Scorecard — Good Candidate
| Dimension | Notes | Score (1–5) |
|---|---|---|
| System & Solution Architecture | Provides clear component boundaries and trade-offs | 3 |
| Technical Leadership & Decision Making | Explains trade-offs and selects a reasonable option | 3 |
| Scalability & Performance | Recommends caching, partitioning, or async patterns | 3 |
| Code Quality & Maintainability | Specifies unit tests and modular components | 3 |
| Security & Compliance | Specifies encryption and access control measures | 3 |
| Collaboration & Communication | Presents designs clearly and adapts to questions | 3 |
| Delivery & Execution | Presents phased rollouts with milestones | 3 |
Software Architect Scorecard — No-Fit Candidate
| Dimension | Notes | Score (1–5) |
|---|---|---|
| System & Solution Architecture | Sketches vague diagrams and omits key interactions | 1 |
| Technical Leadership & Decision Making | Unable to justify preferred technology choices | 1 |
| Scalability & Performance | Misses major scaling constraints in scenario | 1 |
| Code Quality & Maintainability | Suggests monolithic, untestable approaches | 1 |
| Security & Compliance | Doesn't address authentication or data protection | 1 |
| Collaboration & Communication | Cannot explain design to non-authors | 1 |
| Delivery & Execution | Designs that require unrealistic resources or time | 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.