Why Non-Tech Recruiters Struggle to Screen Engineers
If you’re an in-house recruiter trying to fill engineering roles, you’ve probably felt the pressure. You’re expected to vet software engineers confidently—even when you don’t have a computer science background. You might ask a few questions about frameworks or years of experience, but when it comes to gauging real ability? That’s murky territory.
Hiring managers are busy. You need a way to filter out the noise early, without wasting their time (or yours). That’s where a structured, repeatable approach comes in.
This 10-question cheat sheet gives you a practical way to screen software engineers during early interviews—without needing to write a single line of code.
10 Key Questions to Ask (And What the Answers Reveal)
1. “Tell me about a recent technical challenge you faced and how you solved it.”
Reveals: Problem-solving ability, communication skills, and real-world experience.
2. “What programming languages do you feel most comfortable with, and why?”
Reveals: Skill alignment, depth of experience, and self-awareness.
3. “Walk me through a project you’ve built from scratch or contributed to meaningfully.”
Reveals: Ownership, collaboration, and their role in a team context.
4. “How do you ensure the quality of your code?”
Reveals: Understanding of testing, documentation, and software craftsmanship.
5. “What’s your approach when debugging an issue in code you didn’t write?”
Reveals: Comfort with complexity, investigative thinking, and communication style.
6. “Describe your experience working with version control systems like Git.”
Reveals: Familiarity with essential tools and best practices in modern software teams.
7. “How do you stay up to date with new technologies or frameworks?”
Reveals: Curiosity, continuous learning, and cultural fit.
8. “Have you ever disagreed with a teammate or stakeholder on a technical decision? What happened?”
Reveals: Conflict resolution skills, maturity, and team dynamics.
9. “What’s more important to you: shipping on time or writing perfect code?”
Reveals: Thought process, prioritization, and alignment with company culture.
10. “If you join us, what kind of projects or challenges are you most excited to work on?”
Reveals: Motivation, goals, and whether the role aligns with their interests.
Red Flags and Green Flags in Responses
Here’s how to interpret the answers, even without a technical background. As a recruiter, your focus should be on how candidates approach problems, explain their thought process, and collaborate with others—not on the correctness of the code they wrote in the past. You’re looking for clues in how they communicate, what they prioritize, and whether they demonstrate practical awareness of how real teams build and ship software. Listen for thoughtful, honest reflections. Can they break down complex ideas into clear language? Do they show initiative and responsibility? Do they speak in terms of outcomes and teamwork, or just tools and titles? These behavioral indicators often say more than technical jargon ever will.
Green Flags:
- Specific examples with context and outcomes: Strong candidates don’t just name technologies—they explain what they built, why it mattered, and the results. For example, rather than saying, "I worked on a dashboard," a strong answer might be: "I built a real-time dashboard with React and D3.js that cut support response times by 25%." These stories demonstrate impact, initiative, and business value.
- Clear explanations without excessive jargon: Strong candidates explain complex topics simply and clearly. If they can describe how an API works using plain language or a helpful analogy, they likely understand it well. Overuse of jargon or overly technical tangents can signal confusion or poor communication. Look for candidates who adapt to their audience and communicate with clarity and confidence.
- Signs of collaboration and ownership: Look for candidates who emphasize teamwork and shared success using phrases like “we decided” or “our team implemented.” These responses reflect emotional intelligence and experience in real-world environments. Ownership shows when candidates take responsibility for challenges and speak openly about how they responded. Prioritize those who demonstrate accountability, initiative, and pride in their contributions.
- Mentions of testing, version control, or CI/CD: These are core habits of professional engineers. Look for candidates who mention writing tests, using Git, or deploying with tools like Jenkins or GitHub Actions. These practices signal real-world experience and readiness to contribute to a modern, team-based development workflow.
- Passion for learning or community involvement (e.g., open source, blogs): Curious engineers often go beyond their day jobs. Those who contribute to open source, write blogs, attend meetups, or take online courses show initiative and a growth mindset. This signals adaptability, continuous learning, and enthusiasm for their craft—all signs of long-term value to your team.
Red Flags:
- Vague or overly generic answers: Generic statements like "I fixed bugs" or "I used JavaScript" reveal little about a candidate's actual skills or contributions. Strong candidates explain what they did, how they did it, and what the outcome was. If the answer sounds like it could apply to anyone, it’s time to ask follow-up questions or move on.
- Blaming teammates for past failures: Deflecting blame or criticizing former coworkers signals poor collaboration and lack of accountability. In strong engineering teams, responsibility is shared. Look for candidates who own their role in setbacks and reflect on what they learned.
- Focus on buzzwords over actual impact: Candidates who list tools like "React, Kubernetes, AWS" without explaining their use may lack depth. Strong candidates connect tools to outcomes—how their choices improved performance, scalability, or team output. If it's all tech names and no results, dig deeper.
- No mention of code quality, testing, or documentation: If a candidate doesn't mention writing maintainable code, testing for correctness, or documenting their work, it may suggest limited experience in real-world, team-based environments. Strong engineers think beyond just getting code to run—they consider readability, reliability, and handoff. If these topics never come up, ask follow-ups.
- Inability to explain things clearly to a non-technical person: Engineers often work with cross-functional teams. If a candidate can't explain their work in simple, jargon-free terms, it may hinder collaboration. Overcomplicated answers or assumptions about others’ technical knowledge are red flags. Strong engineers adjust their communication to suit their audience.
You don’t need to validate every technical detail—just look for patterns that show how they think, work, and communicate.
