Culture Interview Script Generator Make your own script

Example scripts · A software consultancy hiring for Craftsmanship, Candor, and Curiosity.

Culture-interview script — Codeforge Labs

Codeforge Labs Culture Interview Script

📅 Interview Information

  • Candidate Name:
  • Date:
  • Lead Interviewer:
  • Shadow Interviewer:
  • Duration: 60 minutes

🔍 Objective

The purpose of this interview is to assess the candidate's alignment with Codeforge Labs's core values through open-ended, behavior-based questions:

  • Craftsmanship: Code we are proud to sign.
  • Candor: Direct, kind feedback with no surprises.
  • Curiosity: We learn in public and share what we find.

These questions are designed to explore how the candidate has demonstrated each value in real-world settings. This is not a test of theoretical knowledge—we are evaluating how the person naturally behaves and what they prioritize in a professional context.

🔧 Interviewer Instructions

Before the interview

  • Make a copy of the script, one for each interviewer.
  • Decide who will be the lead interviewer and who will shadow.
  • Make sure you have the meeting invite and that the VC link is added.

During the interview

  • Encourage STAR responses: Situation, Task, Action, Result.
  • Use the script questions and allow the candidate to talk (ask and wait, don't lead the candidate!).
  • Ask each question using the English version; use a translated version only if the candidate needs it, and capture the answers in English.
  • If an answer stays in "we" terms, ask "What did you personally do?" before judging it — collective phrasing is a modesty norm in many cultures and is not itself a negative signal.
  • If an answer echoes the value's own language or just lists activities ("I ran a workshop", "I aligned everyone") without a concrete personal action, probe "What specifically did you decide or do, and what changed?" before scoring — reward substance over rehearsed value-talk.
  • Judge the candidate's reasoning, honesty, and learning — not whether the story ended well. A well-reasoned decision that failed, or an honest account of a tradeoff that left some unhappy, can score at the top; a polished everything-worked-out answer is not automatically better.
  • Take clear notes in the provided space.
  • Manage the time and move the candidate along if they stray off from answering the questions.

After the interview

  • To avoid anchoring each other do not share impressions or scores with the other interviewer until both have submitted feedback.
  • Use the positive/negative signals for each question to guide scoring, marking the parts in the answers with ✅ or 🚩.
  • Score each value independently after the interview using the rubric, based on the signals you detected in the candidate's answers.
  • Do not base your decision on anything other than the signals from this interview.

👋 Example Candidate Introduction (make it yours and personal)

Welcome the candidate and explain the purpose of the interview:

"Hi [Candidate Name], and thank you for joining us today.

In this interview, we'll talk about how you work and behave in different types of situations.

We'll ask you some open-ended questions about past experiences and we have a script for this, to minimize the risk of bias and to ensure all interviews are conducted in the same structure.

There are no right or wrong answers here—our goal is to get to know you better and see how your approach aligns with our company values.

I will be leading the interview today and my colleague [shadow interviewer name] will also be taking part. We will both be taking notes on our laptops so please forgive the typing noise in the background!

I'll try to manage the time and move us along if necessary, so you get at least 10 minutes at the end to ask us any questions you might have.

If you are comfortable and feel ready let's jump right in!"

🎙️ INTERVIEW QUESTIONS

🌟 Craftsmanship

Code we are proud to sign.

❓ Question 1

  • 🇬🇧 Tell me about a time when you had to choose between taking an easy route or investing extra time and effort to deliver work you felt truly satisfied with. What did you do and why?
  • 🇸🇪 Berätta om en gång när du var tvungen att välja mellan en enkel väg eller att lägga ner extra tid och ansträngning för att leverera arbete som du verkligen var nöjd med. Vad gjorde du och varför?

Why we ask: This question aims to uncover the candidate's commitment to quality even when it requires extra effort or goes against easier options.

Candidate's answer:

Positive Signals
  1. ✅ Candidate describes a specific instance where they chose a challenging path to ensure quality.
    • "I decided to refactor the codebase even though it wasn't required because it would make future updates easier."
    • "I worked overtime to perfect the feature because I knew it would impact the user experience positively."
  2. ✅ Candidate demonstrates weighing the pros and cons of each option before deciding.
    • "I considered the tight deadline but felt the potential long-term benefits justified the extra time."
    • "I evaluated the impact of both options and decided the quality outcome was worth the additional effort."
  3. ✅ Candidate articulates pride in the outcome, regardless of its reception.
    • "Even though it took longer, I was proud of the maintainable code I delivered."
    • "The project was delayed, but I was satisfied knowing the quality met my standards."
Negative Signals
  1. 🚩 Candidate describes a choice that was easy rather than conscientious.
    • "I just followed the project manager's instructions without thinking much about it."
    • "I took the shortest route because it was the quickest way to deliver."
  2. 🚩 Candidate shows no personal ownership or pride in the decision.
    • "The team decided we should just get it done quickly, so that's what we did."
    • "It wasn't up to me; I just did what I was told."
  3. 🚩 Candidate fails to provide a specific example or is vague about their actions.
    • "I always try to do my best."
    • "I believe in quality over quantity, generally speaking."

❓ Question 2

  • 🇬🇧 Can you walk me through a project where you were responsible for the quality from start to finish? What decisions did you make to ensure the outcome met your standards?
  • 🇸🇪 Kan du gå igenom ett projekt där du var ansvarig för kvaliteten från början till slut? Vilka beslut tog du för att säkerställa att resultatet motsvarade dina standarder?

Why we ask: This question is designed to reveal the candidate's default approach to maintaining high standards when owning a project entirely.

Candidate's answer:

Positive Signals
  1. ✅ Candidate provides a detailed example of their involvement and decision-making process.
    • "I started with a detailed plan and continuously tested the components to ensure they met our quality benchmarks."
    • "I was involved in every phase, ensuring that no steps were skipped and quality checks were in place."
  2. ✅ Candidate demonstrates thoughtful consideration of quality assurance and testing.
    • "I implemented rigorous testing processes to catch errors early."
    • "I set up a feedback loop to constantly assess and improve quality."
  3. ✅ Candidate explains the rationale behind their decisions with specific outcomes.
    • "I chose to use a particular framework because it improved performance and maintainability."
    • "I prioritized certain features based on their impact on user satisfaction."
Negative Signals
  1. 🚩 Candidate provides a generic response with no specific details.
    • "I just made sure everything was working as expected."
    • "I followed the standard procedures to complete the project."
  2. 🚩 Candidate shows lack of personal impact or accountability.
    • "The team handled most of the quality aspects; I was just part of it."
    • "I relied on others to ensure quality was maintained."
  3. 🚩 Candidate's focus is on completion rather than quality.
    • "The main goal was to finish on time; quality was secondary."
    • "I was more focused on delivering than on the quality aspects."

❓ Question 3

  • 🇬🇧 Describe a situation where your focus on quality was challenged or proven to be incorrect. How did you handle it?
  • 🇸🇪 Beskriv en situation där ditt fokus på kvalitet ifrågasattes eller visade sig vara fel. Hur hanterade du det?

Why we ask: This question assesses the candidate's ability to handle criticism and learn from situations where their approach to quality was questioned or failed.

Candidate's answer:

Positive Signals
  1. ✅ Candidate acknowledges the challenge and reflects on the feedback received.
    • "I realized my approach was too rigid and adapted based on the team's feedback."
    • "I listened to the concerns and adjusted my priorities to align with the project's needs."
  2. ✅ Candidate demonstrates learning and adaptation from the experience.
    • "I learned to balance quality with speed by iterating more frequently."
    • "I understood the importance of incorporating different perspectives early on."
  3. ✅ Candidate shows maturity in handling criticism and integrates it into future work.
    • "After the feedback, I started involving stakeholders earlier in the process."
    • "I now ensure to have regular reviews to catch issues before they escalate."
Negative Signals
  1. 🚩 Candidate dismisses the challenge or shows no learning from the experience.
    • "I didn't think the feedback was valid, so I continued as planned."
    • "It was just a difference of opinion, nothing needed changing."
  2. 🚩 Candidate fails to provide a specific instance or remains vague.
    • "I can't think of a time when that happened."
    • "I usually don't face such challenges."
  3. 🚩 Candidate's response indicates a lack of engagement with the feedback process.
    • "I just let it go because it wasn't worth the effort."
    • "I didn't follow up on the feedback because it wasn't my responsibility."

🎯 Candor

Direct, kind feedback with no surprises.

❓ Question 1

  • 🇬🇧 Describe a time when you had to deliver feedback on a project you led. How did you approach the situation, and what was the outcome?
  • 🇸🇪 Berätta om en gång då du behövde ge feedback på ett projekt du ledde. Hur hanterade du situationen, och vad blev resultatet?

Why we ask: To evaluate how the candidate manages the delivery of direct and kind feedback, and whether they are capable of providing such feedback without causing surprises.

Candidate's answer:

Positive Signals
  1. ✅ Candidate delivered feedback that was direct and constructive, focusing on improvement.
    • "I scheduled a one-on-one meeting to discuss what went well and what could be improved."
    • "I made sure to point out specific examples and offered suggestions for improvement."
  2. ✅ Candidate ensured that the feedback didn't come as a surprise by maintaining regular communication.
    • "We had weekly check-ins where I consistently provided updates and feedback."
    • "I had previously mentioned my concerns in a team meeting, so the feedback was expected."
  3. ✅ Candidate balanced directness with kindness, showing empathy while being honest.
    • "I acknowledged the hard work done and then explained the areas needing change."
    • "I made sure to express appreciation before discussing the challenges."
Negative Signals
  1. 🚩 Feedback was vague or sugar-coated, avoiding directness.
    • "I told them it was fine but didn't go into specifics."
    • "I hinted at the issues but didn't address them directly."
  2. 🚩 Feedback came as a surprise to the team or individual.
    • "They were shocked by the feedback because we hadn't discussed these issues before."
    • "I brought it up during a review without prior warning."
  3. 🚩 Feedback was harsh or lacking empathy, causing discomfort.
    • "I was pretty blunt about their failures which upset them."
    • "I criticized their work without acknowledging their effort."

❓ Question 2

  • 🇬🇧 Think of a time when your approach to giving feedback was met with resistance or disagreement. How did you handle the situation?
  • 🇸🇪 Tänk på en gång när ditt sätt att ge feedback mötte motstånd eller oenighet. Hur hanterade du situationen?

Why we ask: To assess how the candidate responds to challenges or disagreements when their approach to feedback is questioned.

Candidate's answer:

Positive Signals
  1. ✅ Candidate listened to the concerns and adjusted their approach thoughtfully.
    • "I listened to their concerns and adjusted my feedback to be more constructive."
    • "I realized I needed to provide more context to my feedback."
  2. ✅ Candidate engaged in a dialogue, valuing input while remaining honest about issues.
    • "We discussed their objections, and I explained my reasoning while considering their perspective."
    • "I encouraged an open discussion to understand their view."
  3. ✅ Candidate reflected on the situation to improve future feedback delivery.
    • "I realized I might have been too direct and noted to be more tactful next time."
    • "I learned to check in more frequently to avoid last-minute surprises."
Negative Signals
  1. 🚩 Candidate dismissed the resistance and continued without adjustment.
    • "I just told them it was my decision and moved on."
    • "I ignored their objections and stuck to my original feedback."
  2. 🚩 Candidate became defensive or argumentative, escalating the conflict.
    • "I told them they were wrong and needed to accept the feedback."
    • "I argued with them instead of listening to their point of view."
  3. 🚩 Candidate failed to reflect or learn from the resistance encountered.
    • "I didn't think much about it afterward; I believed I was right."
    • "I didn't change anything in my feedback approach."

❓ Question 3

  • 🇬🇧 Tell me about a situation where you had to mediate a disagreement between team members regarding feedback. What actions did you take?
  • 🇸🇪 Berätta om en situation där du behövde medla i en oenighet mellan teammedlemmar kring feedback. Vilka åtgärder vidtog du?

Why we ask: To explore the candidate's ability to mediate and facilitate direct and kind communication among team members.

Candidate's answer:

Positive Signals
  1. ✅ Candidate facilitated open communication, ensuring both parties were heard.
    • "I set up a meeting for them to discuss their perspectives and find common ground."
    • "I made sure both sides felt their voices were heard before moving forward."
  2. ✅ Candidate helped clarify misunderstandings and foster mutual respect.
    • "I helped them understand each other's points of view and find a mutual solution."
    • "I clarified the intent behind the feedback to reduce tension."
  3. ✅ Candidate provided guidance on how to give and receive feedback constructively.
    • "I suggested ways they could phrase their feedback more effectively."
    • "I provided tips on how to accept feedback graciously."
Negative Signals
  1. 🚩 Candidate avoided addressing the disagreement directly.
    • "I told them to sort it out themselves without getting involved."
    • "I didn't address the issue and hoped it would resolve on its own."
  2. 🚩 Candidate took sides or escalated the conflict.
    • "I sided with one person without hearing the other's perspective."
    • "I ended up making the situation worse by taking a side."
  3. 🚩 Candidate failed to ensure open and respectful dialogue.
    • "I didn't facilitate a discussion; I just told them to be more professional."
    • "I let them argue it out without intervening."

🚀 Curiosity

We learn in public and share what we find.

❓ Question 1

  • 🇬🇧 Can you tell me about a time when you pursued a new idea or project that was met with skepticism or criticism? How did you handle the situation, and what did you learn?
  • 🇸🇪 Kan du berätta om en gång när du drev en ny idé eller projekt som möttes med skepsis eller kritik? Hur hanterade du situationen och vad lärde du dig?

Why we ask: This question seeks to uncover how the candidate deals with external challenges to their pursuit of new knowledge or projects, highlighting how they balance their curiosity with feedback and opposition.

Candidate's answer:

Positive Signals
  1. ✅ Shows determination to explore new ideas despite skepticism and reflects on feedback.
    • "I listened to their concerns and used them to refine my approach."
    • "I realized there were valid points in their criticism and adjusted my strategy."
  2. ✅ Demonstrates ability to engage constructively with critics and extract value from their feedback.
    • "I had a discussion with them to understand their perspective better."
    • "I invited them to collaborate and see if we could address their concerns together."
  3. ✅ Learns from the experience and applies lessons to future initiatives.
    • "From this experience, I learned to present my ideas more clearly."
    • "I realized the importance of seeking diverse opinions early in the process."
Negative Signals
  1. 🚩 Dismisses criticism without consideration or learning.
    • "I ignored their feedback because I knew I was right."
    • "I just pushed forward without addressing their concerns."
  2. 🚩 Fails to engage with critics or misses opportunity for constructive dialogue.
    • "I didn't bother to discuss it with them, as I felt it was a waste of time."
    • "I avoided interacting with them because I didn't want to deal with negativity."
  3. 🚩 No reflection on the experience or learning evident.
    • "In the end, it didn't really matter what they thought."
    • "I haven't really thought about that experience since it happened."

❓ Question 2

  • 🇬🇧 Describe a situation where you and your team had to explore an unfamiliar domain or technology. What role did you take, and how did you contribute to the team's understanding?
  • 🇸🇪 Beskriv en situation där du och ditt team behövde utforska ett obekant område eller teknologi. Vilken roll tog du, och hur bidrog du till teamets förståelse?

Why we ask: This question assesses the candidate's ability to drive curiosity and learning within a team, focusing on their personal contributions and initiative in unfamiliar situations.

Candidate's answer:

Positive Signals
  1. ✅ Takes initiative to lead or guide the team in exploring new areas.
    • "I organized a series of workshops to help the team get up to speed."
    • "I took the lead in researching and sharing key insights with the team."
  2. ✅ Proactively shares knowledge and involves others in the learning process.
    • "I set up a shared document where we could all contribute our findings."
    • "I encouraged team discussions to ensure everyone could ask questions and learn together."
  3. ✅ Demonstrates personal growth and contributes to team competence.
    • "I learned a lot about the technology and helped others understand it too."
    • "I became a go-to person for questions about the new domain."
Negative Signals
  1. 🚩 Passively participates without contributing to team learning.
    • "I just waited for others to figure it out and then followed their lead."
    • "I didn't really engage much because I was already busy with other tasks."
  2. 🚩 Holds back information or fails to facilitate team learning.
    • "I figured things out on my own but didn't share much with the team."
    • "I didn't think it was necessary to involve others until later."
  3. 🚩 No personal initiative or learning contribution.
    • "I wasn't really involved in the learning process."
    • "I left it to others to handle and focused on my usual tasks."

❓ Question 3

  • 🇬🇧 Tell me about a time when you had to balance exploring a new idea or technology with the need to deliver results on a tight schedule. What did you do?
  • 🇸🇪 Berätta om en gång när du behövde balansera utforskandet av en ny idé eller teknologi med behovet av att leverera resultat inom en stram tidsram. Vad gjorde du?

Why we ask: This question probes the candidate's ability to manage the tradeoff between the pursuit of new knowledge and the practical constraints of project deadlines, highlighting their decision-making process.

Candidate's answer:

Positive Signals
  1. ✅ Carefully evaluates the tradeoff and makes a reasoned decision.
    • "I weighed the potential benefits of the new technology against the project timeline."
    • "I decided to implement parts of the idea that offered immediate value."
  2. ✅ Finds creative solutions to incorporate learning without derailing timelines.
    • "I proposed a pilot to test the idea without affecting the main deliverables."
    • "I integrated small experiments into our workflow to gather insights quickly."
  3. ✅ Reflects on the decision-making process and learns from the outcome.
    • "I learned how to better assess when it's worth pursuing new ideas under pressure."
    • "This experience taught me to involve the team early in such decisions."
Negative Signals
  1. 🚩 Neglects to consider the impact of exploration on project delivery.
    • "I just went ahead with the new idea without thinking about the deadline."
    • "I didn't really consider how it might affect our timelines."
  2. 🚩 Fails to find a balance between exploration and delivery.
    • "I focused too much on the new idea, and we missed our deadline."
    • "I abandoned the idea completely because I felt it was too risky."
  3. 🚩 No reflection or learning from the experience.
    • "I haven't thought much about that situation since it happened."
    • "I moved on without really analyzing what worked or didn't."

📍 Wrap-Up

Close the interview in a warm and respectful way:

"Thank you so much for sharing your experiences with us. It's been a pleasure to learn more about you and how you approach your work. If you have any questions for us, we'd be happy to answer them now."

❓ Questions from the Candidate

This is a two-way moment for the candidate to interview you — it is not a scored value. It has no rubric and no row in the feedback table below. Use what you notice only as soft context for your overall impression, never as a score.

  • 🇬🇧 Do you have any questions for us?
  • 🇸🇪 Har du några frågor till oss?

Why we ask: Assesses how thoughtfully the candidate evaluates company culture and fit.

Candidate's answer:

👂 What's encouraging to hear

  1. "Asked thoughtful questions about team dynamics, leadership style, or values."
  2. "Expressed genuine curiosity about how people grow here."
  3. "Listened attentively to the response and asked follow-up questions."
  4. "Inquired about how feedback is given or collaboration is structured."
  5. "Mentioned how their goals align with the company's mission."

👂 What's worth noting

  1. "Had no questions and showed limited curiosity."
  2. "Focused only on compensation, vacation, or perks."
  3. "Seemed disengaged or ended the conversation abruptly."
  4. "Expressed doubts about company direction without constructive framing."
  5. "Did not react to interviewer responses or seemed uninterested."

📝 Feedback on Interview

Complete this section independently after the interview. Do not discuss scores or impressions with co-interviewers.

🔢 Scoring Rubric

For each value, assign a score from 1 to 5:

Craftsmanship

Score Description
1 – Superficial The candidate provides vague, generic answers with no specific examples or concrete actions. They show little understanding or ownership of the quality aspect in their work.
2 – Basic The candidate offers minimal examples with limited details and demonstrates a basic awareness of quality but lacks depth in their reasoning or reflection on their actions.
3 – Competent The candidate provides specific examples and shows an understanding of the importance of quality. They demonstrate some ownership and reflection but may lack depth in handling complex trade-offs or challenges.
4 – Proficient The candidate offers detailed examples with sound reasoning and demonstrates a strong commitment to quality. They reflect on their experiences and show learning from past challenges, effectively balancing trade-offs.
5 – Mastery The candidate provides rich, insightful examples with thorough reasoning and ownership. They demonstrate an exceptional commitment to quality, handle complex challenges thoughtfully, and integrate feedback into continuous improvement, regardless of the outcome.

Candor

Score Description
1 – Avoidant The candidate avoids direct feedback or fails to engage in open dialogue. Feedback is either absent or comes as a surprise, indicating a lack of candor.
2 – Inconsistent The candidate shows some ability to deliver direct feedback but often lacks empathy or fails to communicate regularly, leading to surprises or defensiveness.
3 – Basic The candidate provides direct feedback but may struggle with balancing kindness or handling pushback effectively. Shows some reflection but lacks depth.
4 – Competent The candidate effectively balances directness with empathy, engages in open dialogue, and learns from past challenges, showing growth in feedback delivery.
5 – Exemplary The candidate consistently delivers feedback that is both direct and kind, ensures no surprises, handles resistance with skill, and demonstrates significant learning and growth.

Curiosity

Score Description
1 – Uninquisitive Shows little to no evidence of curiosity or learning. Responses lack depth and fail to demonstrate any engagement with new ideas or feedback.
2 – Passive Participates in new learning opportunities when prompted but lacks initiative. Responses might show limited engagement or reliance on others to drive exploration.
3 – Responsive Engages with new ideas and feedback but typically reacts rather than leads. Shows some reflection and learning but might struggle in balancing curiosity with other priorities.
4 – Proactive Actively seeks out and engages with new ideas, often taking the lead in exploration. Demonstrates thoughtful reflection and learns from experiences, showing a balance between curiosity and project demands.
5 – Innovative Driven by a deep curiosity that fuels innovation and learning. Consistently reflects on and learns from experiences, effectively balancing curiosity with practical constraints to deliver value.

✍️ Feedback Table

Value Score Justification
Craftsmanship <insert score 1-5> <insert justification, citing the signals you marked>
Candor <insert score 1-5> <insert justification, citing the signals you marked>
Curiosity <insert score 1-5> <insert justification, citing the signals you marked>

🧭 How to read the scores

These scores support your judgment — they are not an automated pass/fail. Value fit predicts engagement and retention, not job performance, so treat this as one input alongside a separate skills assessment, never as a verdict on its own.

Guidance for combining the scores (adjust to your role and context):

  • Look at the pattern across values, not an average — one strong value does not offset a serious gap in another.
  • As a default passing bar, look for no value scored below 3, with the values most critical to this role at 4 or above. A 1–2 on any value is a signal to slow down and discuss, not an automatic reject.
  • Integrity floor. For any value about honesty, fairness, ethics, safety, or trust, a serious concern (a genuine 🚩, roughly a 1–2) outweighs high scores elsewhere — do not proceed on strong scores alone. Raise it explicitly before recommending a hire.
  • Where scores are borderline, the evidence you marked (✅/🚩) decides — cite it in your recommendation below rather than relying on an overall feeling.

✅ Final Recommendation

<insert your recommendation — this supports the hiring team's decision, it is not the decision>

🧭 Recommendation Justification

<Insert 2-3 sentences, citing the specific signals and scores that drive your recommendation>

When finished please send this document to .

End of Interview Script

Make a script for your company values