A form for capturing interview feedback that is actually useful: structured fields, a clear rating scale, evidence prompts, and an explicit recommendation.
Interview feedback is only valuable if it is structured. A blank "notes" box produces feedback that ranges from a paragraph of detail to a single word, written hours later, with no consistent way to compare it across interviewers. A good feedback form fixes the fields every interviewer must fill, ties ratings to evidence, and ends with an explicit recommendation, so the debrief works from comparable signal rather than a pile of mismatched impressions.
This template gives you a complete, reusable interview feedback form: the fields to capture, a four-point rating scale, prompts that force evidence, and a clear recommendation structure. Use it as is, or see how Lehire turns the form into a live, structured capture that feeds an evidence-based fit score and keeps every interview's feedback consistent and connected.
An interview feedback form is a structured template each interviewer completes after a candidate interview, capturing ratings against defined competencies, the evidence behind each rating, strengths and concerns, and an explicit hire recommendation. It replaces free-form notes with consistent, comparable feedback that a hiring team can act on.
A complete feedback form has a fixed set of fields. Header: candidate name, role, interview stage, interviewer, and date, so feedback is traceable. Competencies assessed: the specific competencies this interviewer was assigned, each with its rating, rather than a single overall impression. Evidence per competency: the specific observations that justify each rating. Strengths: the candidate's clearest demonstrated strengths. Concerns and risks: gaps, red flags, or areas that need follow-up in later rounds.
Areas to probe next: an explicit handoff to the next interviewer, naming anything this round could not resolve, so the loop builds on itself instead of repeating. Overall recommendation: an explicit hire decision on a fixed scale. Optional but useful: a confidence note (how strong was the signal) and any conflicts of interest. Keeping the fields fixed is what makes feedback comparable; a free-text box does not.
Rate each assigned competency on a four-point anchored scale. 1, Strong no: clear evidence below the bar. 2, Lean no: some ability, notable gaps. 3, Lean yes: meets the bar with solid evidence. 4, Strong yes: clearly exceeds the bar. Pair the competency ratings with an explicit overall recommendation on a parallel scale: Strong no hire, No hire, Hire, Strong hire. The two are distinct: a candidate can score well on the competencies you saw and still warrant a "no hire" if a serious concern surfaced.
Make the recommendation mandatory and unambiguous. The most useless feedback is a hedge: "good candidate, could go either way." Force a lean. If an interviewer truly cannot recommend, that itself is signal about the interview design, not a reason to leave the field blank.
Anchor every rating to evidence. The form should make evidence a required field next to each rating, not an optional afterthought, because a rating without an observation cannot be reconciled with another interviewer's rating in the debrief.
Replace the blank box with prompts that pull specifics out of interviewers. Instead of "Notes", use: "What specifically did the candidate do or say that supports your rating?" Instead of "Concerns", use: "What is the strongest reason not to hire this candidate, based on what you saw?" Instead of "Overall", use: "If this were your decision alone, would you hire? Why?"
Add a handoff prompt: "What should the next interviewer probe that you could not resolve?" This single field turns a set of isolated interviews into a connected loop where each round deliberately fills the previous round's gaps. Add a bias check prompt for sensitive roles: "Is any part of your rating based on something other than the competencies, like rapport or background similarity?"
The goal of every prompt is the same: move feedback from impression toward observation. An interviewer who writes "strong communicator: explained a complex migration to me, a non-expert, in three clear steps" has given the team something usable; one who writes "great communicator" has not.
Capture feedback immediately after the interview and before any discussion with other interviewers. Memory decays fast and, more importantly, feedback written after the debrief is contaminated by other people's opinions. Independent, immediate feedback is the only kind worth comparing. Make submitting the form a gate before the debrief, not an action that happens during it.
In the debrief, work from the forms. Go competency by competency, read the evidence behind extreme ratings, and resolve disagreement by comparing observations rather than re-litigating who is more senior. The recommendation field gives you a quick read of the room, but the evidence fields are what actually decide it.
Retain the feedback against the candidate. Beyond this hire, it becomes a record you can revisit if the decision is questioned, a source of signal if the candidate applies again, and data for improving your interview design when you see which feedback predicted strong hires and which did not.
Lehire turns the form into fixed fields every interviewer completes, so feedback is consistent and comparable rather than free text of varying depth.
Each competency rating requires a supporting observation, so the feedback can actually be reconciled across interviewers in the debrief.
Lehire rolls every interviewer's structured feedback into one fit score per candidate, with the strengths, concerns, and evidence attached.
The flow encourages feedback to be submitted before the debrief, preserving the independence that makes it worth comparing.
The "probe next" field flows to later interviewers, so each round builds on the last instead of repeating the same questions.
Feedback is retained against the candidate, so it informs future roles and helps you learn which feedback predicted strong hires.
A spreadsheet feedback form is a clear improvement on a blank notes box. Here is what changes inside a hiring decision intelligence platform.
Give every interviewer the same fields and scale so the debrief works from comparable signal instead of mismatched notes.
When feedback arrives structured and evidence-backed, the debrief resolves disagreement by reading observations rather than arguing.
Use the handoff field so each interviewer deliberately probes what the previous round could not resolve.
A traceable header, ratings against the assigned competencies, the evidence behind each rating, clear strengths and concerns, a handoff to the next interviewer, and an explicit hire recommendation on a fixed scale.
Immediately after the interview and before any discussion with other interviewers. Feedback written after the debrief is contaminated by other people's opinions and loses most of its value.
Replace blank boxes with prompts that demand specifics, like "what specifically did the candidate do that supports your rating?", and make an evidence field required next to each rating.
Yes. Make the recommendation mandatory on a fixed scale (strong no hire to strong hire). The most useless feedback is a hedge that could go either way; forcing a lean is the point.
A scorecard defines the criteria and the bar for the whole role. A feedback form is what each interviewer completes per interview to record their ratings, evidence, and recommendation against that scorecard.
Yes. Lehire turns the form into fixed, evidence-required fields that feed an evidence-based fit score and flow handoffs to later interviewers, keeping every interview's feedback connected.
Give every interviewer fixed, evidence-required fields, keep feedback independent and connected, and roll it into one evidence-based fit score.