Assessment & Rubric Library

Every JobFrame Family×Focus×Level ships with its interview kit (behavioral/STAR questions with probes & red-flags), behaviorally-anchored rating scales (BARS), level-calibrated performance criteria, and a validity / job-relatedness / adverse-impact (EEOC 4/5ths) evidence trail. Assembled from the canon and composing reincarnation validated items.

Showing seeded examples. Generate kits per role via POST /api/spokes/assessment-library/kits.

Software Engineer

SWE.GEN.P3 · level P3

approvedadequate

Interview kit · 7 questions

  • Shipped, tested production code

    Tell me about a specific time you demonstrated "Shipped, tested production code". What was the situation, what was your task, what actions did you take, and what was the result?

    Red flag: Cannot give a concrete, first-hand example (speaks only in generalities).

    via canon_component

  • Data structures and algorithms

    Tell me about a specific time you demonstrated "Data structures and algorithms". What was the situation, what was your task, what actions did you take, and what was the result?

    Red flag: Cannot give a concrete, first-hand example (speaks only in generalities).

    via canon_component

  • Writing maintainable, testable code

    Tell me about a specific time you demonstrated "Writing maintainable, testable code". What was the situation, what was your task, what actions did you take, and what was the result?

    Red flag: Cannot give a concrete, first-hand example (speaks only in generalities).

    via canon_component

  • Debugging and root-cause analysis

    Tell me about a specific time you demonstrated "Debugging and root-cause analysis". What was the situation, what was your task, what actions did you take, and what was the result?

    Red flag: Cannot give a concrete, first-hand example (speaks only in generalities).

    via canon_component

Performance criteria · 4

  • Shipped, tested production code

    Consistently delivers "Shipped, tested production code" at the level's expected autonomy: Applies established engineering practices independently to defined problems.

  • Deliver features against a sprint commitment

    Consistently delivers "Deliver features against a sprint commitment" at the level's expected autonomy: Applies established engineering practices independently to defined problems.

  • Review peers' code constructively

    Consistently delivers "Review peers' code constructively" at the level's expected autonomy: Applies established engineering practices independently to defined problems.

  • Defect escape rate on owned components

    Consistently delivers "Defect escape rate on owned components" at the level's expected autonomy: Applies established engineering practices independently to defined problems.

Example BARS — Shipped, tested production code

  • 1 Well below expectations: Repeatedly fails to apply shipped, tested production code (at P3); requires constant direction and produces unusable work.
  • 2 Below expectations: Applies shipped, tested production code only with heavy guidance (at P3); output needs significant rework.
  • 3 Meets expectations: Independently applies shipped, tested production code to the level's typical scope (at P3) — e.g. Breaks down moderately complex problems and selects from known solutions.; reliable, no rework needed.
  • 4 Exceeds expectations: Applies shipped, tested production code to ambiguous or cross-functional problems beyond the level (at P3); raises the bar for peers.
  • 5 Role model: Sets the organizational standard for shipped, tested production code (at P3); mentors others and drives systemic improvement.
Job-relatedness: Every assessment item traces to a documented work component of the canonical Family×Focus×Level profile "SWE.GEN.P3" (Software Engineer). Because each interview question, BARS dimension, and performance criterion derives from the job-analysis components in the canon (responsibilities, KSAOs, core outputs), the instrument satisfies a content-validity strategy under the Uniform Guidelines (29 CFR 1607). Operational validity should be confirmed with local criterion data before high-stakes use.

Senior Engineering Manager

MGR.ENG.M3 · level M3

approvedadequate

Interview kit · 7 questions

  • A high-performing, growing engineering team

    Tell me about a specific time you demonstrated "A high-performing, growing engineering team". What was the situation, what was your task, what actions did you take, and what was the result?

    Red flag: Cannot give a concrete, first-hand example (speaks only in generalities).

    via canon_component

  • Coaching and developing engineering talent

    Tell me about a specific time you demonstrated "Coaching and developing engineering talent". What was the situation, what was your task, what actions did you take, and what was the result?

    Red flag: Cannot give a concrete, first-hand example (speaks only in generalities).

    via canon_component

  • Setting and communicating technical strategy

    Tell me about a specific time you demonstrated "Setting and communicating technical strategy". What was the situation, what was your task, what actions did you take, and what was the result?

    Red flag: Cannot give a concrete, first-hand example (speaks only in generalities).

    via canon_component

  • Making sound decisions under ambiguity

    Tell me about a specific time you demonstrated "Making sound decisions under ambiguity". What was the situation, what was your task, what actions did you take, and what was the result?

    Red flag: Cannot give a concrete, first-hand example (speaks only in generalities).

    via canon_component

Performance criteria · 4

  • A high-performing, growing engineering team

    Consistently delivers "A high-performing, growing engineering team" at the level's expected autonomy: Applies leadership and domain judgment to set direction for multiple teams.

  • Deliver the organization's roadmap commitments

    Consistently delivers "Deliver the organization's roadmap commitments" at the level's expected autonomy: Applies leadership and domain judgment to set direction for multiple teams.

  • Manage performance, hiring and retention

    Consistently delivers "Manage performance, hiring and retention" at the level's expected autonomy: Applies leadership and domain judgment to set direction for multiple teams.

  • Team attrition and engagement scores

    Consistently delivers "Team attrition and engagement scores" at the level's expected autonomy: Applies leadership and domain judgment to set direction for multiple teams.

Example BARS — A high-performing, growing engineering team

  • 1 Well below expectations: Repeatedly fails to apply a high-performing, growing engineering team (at M3); requires constant direction and produces unusable work.
  • 2 Below expectations: Applies a high-performing, growing engineering team only with heavy guidance (at M3); output needs significant rework.
  • 3 Meets expectations: Independently applies a high-performing, growing engineering team to the level's typical scope (at M3) — e.g. Resolves ambiguous, cross-organizational problems with lasting impact.; reliable, no rework needed.
  • 4 Exceeds expectations: Applies a high-performing, growing engineering team to ambiguous or cross-functional problems beyond the level (at M3); raises the bar for peers.
  • 5 Role model: Sets the organizational standard for a high-performing, growing engineering team (at M3); mentors others and drives systemic improvement.
Job-relatedness: Every assessment item traces to a documented work component of the canonical Family×Focus×Level profile "MGR.ENG.M3" (Senior Engineering Manager). Because each interview question, BARS dimension, and performance criterion derives from the job-analysis components in the canon (responsibilities, KSAOs, core outputs), the instrument satisfies a content-validity strategy under the Uniform Guidelines (29 CFR 1607). Operational validity should be confirmed with local criterion data before high-stakes use.