End-to-end structured hiring for QA / SDET / automation / test-lead / quality-manager roles - one chain from job description through interview question bank, competency-anchored scoring rubric, interviewer calibration guide, and post-interview panel debrief, to the 30-60-90 day onboarding plan. Implements the canonical Levashina 2014 et al. structured-interview methodology with ISTQB-aligned competency vocabulary.
73
92%
Does it follow best practices?
Run evals on this skill
Adds up to 20 points to the overall score
View guide
Low
Low-risk findings worth noting
Deep reference for qa-hiring-kit SKILL.md - producing the QA-role-specific
question bank, the what we ask leg of the structured-interview tripod.
Hiring for QA roles is calibration-heavy: the same question scored by two interviewers without a rubric produces high noise (well-documented in structured-interview research). The remedy is a structured interview - same questions, same order, same scoring rubric across candidates. This reference produces the questions half of that pair; the scoring rubric (rubric.md) and the calibration guide (calibration.md) are the other legs.
The bank is QA-specific by design: (a) ISTQB-aligned competency framing, (b) role-specific question depth (manual QA vs SDET vs test lead require different technical / behavioral mixes), (c) STAR-format anchoring on behavioral questions per the canonical STAR method, and (d) a structured output ready to drop into a hiring loop.
| Input | Notes |
|---|---|
| Role title | One of: manual-qa-engineer, qa-automation-engineer, sdet, test-lead, quality-manager. Each has different default depth weights (Step 2). |
| Seniority | One of: junior, mid, senior, staff+. Drives Bloom's-taxonomy difficulty mix in Step 4. |
| Domain context | The product area / regulated industry (e.g., "fintech payments", "healthcare EHR", "consumer mobile") - drives scenario-based questions. |
| Required competencies | Optional; if absent, default to ISTQB Foundation Level chapters relevant to the role (test design, test management, test process, defect management, tools). |
| Forbidden topics | Optional; topics already covered elsewhere in the loop or out-of-scope for legal / compliance reasons. |
If the role title is not one of the five recognised QA roles, halt with
UNRECOGNISED_ROLE: supply a role from the recognised list, or run with
role=qa-generic to use a flat default mix.
A typical 60-minute interview holds 6 - 8 questions; default to a six-question shape. The mix shifts per role:
| Role | Technical depth | Behavioral (STAR) | Scenario-based | System / framework design |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| manual-qa-engineer | 2 | 2 | 2 | 0 |
| qa-automation-engineer | 3 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| sdet | 2 | 1 | 1 | 2 |
| test-lead | 1 | 3 | 1 | 1 |
| quality-manager | 0 | 4 | 1 | 1 |
The mix is configurable; the table is the default. Behavioral count grows with seniority and people-leadership scope per the structured-interview research; technical depth grows with hands-on coding scope.
For each slot, emit one question with the metadata reviewers need:
### Q3 - Behavioral (STAR) | Senior | Bloom: K3 (Apply)
**Question:** Tell me about a release where you caught a critical defect late - after the test cycle but before production. Walk me through the situation, what your role was, what you did, and what the team learned.
**ISTQB competency:** Defect management (defect → failure distinction, escape-defect lifecycle).
**STAR cues:** Listen for: (S) the release context, (T) the candidate's specific responsibility, (A) the diagnostic and communication actions taken, (R) measurable outcomes + retro learnings.
**Time budget:** 8 min.
**Follow-up probes** (use only if the answer is shallow):
- "Was the defect found through automated tests, manual exploration, or a customer report?"
- "What changed in your team's process after this incident?"
- "How did you handle the stakeholder communication?"Each question carries:
Bloom's taxonomy mix per seniority (default; configurable):
| Seniority | K1 | K2 | K3 | K4 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| junior | 30% | 40% | 25% | 5% |
| mid | 15% | 35% | 35% | 15% |
| senior | 5% | 25% | 40% | 30% |
| staff+ | 0% | 15% | 35% | 50% |
Flag questions whose Bloom's level is too far from the role's centre of gravity (e.g., a K1 fundamental question for a staff+ candidate is a wasted slot).
The output is a single markdown document with:
| Anti-pattern | Why it fails | Fix |
|---|---|---|
| Generic behavioral questions ("Tell me about a time you faced a challenge") | Drains the slot; the answer is unscorable because the question lacks specificity. | Behavioral questions must name the QA-specific context (release, defect, framework, regulation). |
| Asking the same question across all seniority levels | The signal is wasted - a K1 fundamentals question reveals nothing about a staff+ candidate. | Step 4 difficulty tuning per seniority. |
| Including a question already covered in the take-home / coding screen | Double-coverage at the cost of a slot. | The forbidden topics input excludes those areas. |
| Including "puzzle" questions ("estimate the number of QA engineers in your city") | Validity is documented to be near zero per structured-interview meta-analyses; the question signals interviewer preference, not candidate competence. | Refuse to emit Fermi / puzzle questions. Cite structured-interview research as the basis. |
| Behavioural questions without STAR cues for the listener | Different interviewers listen for different things; scoring drifts. | Step 3 STAR cues are mandatory for behavioural questions. |
| Letting interviewers free-form their own follow-ups | The dominant source of interview noise. | Step 3 pre-authored follow-up probes. |
| Authoring the question bank without the rubric | Half a structured interview - questions without scoring still drift. | Hand-off insists on rubric.md next. |