About
I built Interview Rubric Creator because I kept watching hiring get decided on gut feeling dressed up as a process. I saw this as a candidate going on hundreds of interviews and observing patterns in this market, but also in the interviews I conducted and hiring teams I was a part of. Different interviewers on the same loop, asking different questions, weighing different things, walking out with different opinions about the same person — and then calling it a decision. Not because anyone involved was careless. Because almost nobody actually has a shared, written-down definition of what “good” looks like for the role before the interviews start. There’s got to be a better way to do this.
That problem was familiar to me before I ever thought about building a product for it. I’ve worked as an educator, and I did graduate research in authentic assessment— the discipline of designing evaluation that actually measures the competence you care about, with clear, observable criteria, instead of a proxy for it. Grading and interviewing turn out to be the same problem wearing different clothes: both are supposed to answer “can this person actually do the thing,” and both quietly fail when the criteria live only in an evaluator’s head.
What I’m solving for, in order
- Inconsistent, biased interviews.When every interviewer is evaluating against their own unwritten sense of the role, you’re not really comparing candidates to a standard — you’re comparing them to whoever happened to interview them. Using an AI-generated shared rubric as a tool to drive consensus agreed on before the loop starts is the fix.
- Hiring teams are rebuilding this from scratch almost every time.Most teams don’t skip structured interviewing because they don’t believe in it — they skip it because writing a good rubric from a blank page, for every role, every time, is genuinely slow. That friction is the actual reason gut feeling wins by default. And that is a problem solved with AI-generated rubrics: speed.
How the tool reflects that
The rubrics this tool generates follow authentic assessment principles directly: every signal gets clear, observable criteria for what exceeds, meets, and falls below expectations — not vague labels, actual behavioral anchors — weighted by how much it matters to the role, paired with the interview format that’s actually suited to assessing it. That’s not incidental phrasing; it’s the same standard I’d hold a well-designed test to.
— Bakari Holmes