Can they build and own the work?
Technical execution, production ownership, and learning velocity show whether a candidate can turn an ambiguous problem into a working system.
DIMENSIONS 01 · 04 · 06
PUBLIC STANDARD VERSION 1.1
The FDE role combines technical execution with customer-facing judgment. This rubric makes the bar visible: seven dimensions, two cores, and one rule—no assessment claim without evidence.
THE STANDARD IN ONE LINE
HOW TO READ THE RUBRIC
A strong FDE is not the average of a builder and a communicator. The standard looks for credible strength in both—and the drive to keep growing.
Technical execution, production ownership, and learning velocity show whether a candidate can turn an ambiguous problem into a working system.
DIMENSIONS 01 · 04 · 06Communication, context extraction, and judgment show whether a candidate can find the right problem and earn trust around the solution.
DIMENSIONS 02 · 03 · 05The kida is the intrinsic drive to build, learn, investigate, and remain accountable. It raises—or caps—the impact of both cores.
DIMENSION 07THE SEVEN DIMENSIONS
Each dimension is evaluated on a five-point scale. Every score must be supported by something the engineer actually built, decided, explained, or learned.
Evidence of real work across full-stack engineering, DevOps, SRE, and AI systems—including models, tools, guardrails, evaluations, reliability, and cost.
Can explain how the system worked, what broke, and why the technical decisions were made.
Clear, structured thinking that can move between engineering detail and an outcome-first explanation for a business leader.
Can compress complexity into a conclusion, a next step, and the decision required.
The ability to uncover the real workflow inside partial documentation, hidden exceptions, competing goals, and organizational constraints.
Investigates before building and can reshape a workflow without ignoring the people inside it.
Accountability for results in production—not activity, features, or effort—and the willingness to stay on the hook when the system fails.
Speaks concretely about what shipped, what changed, and what they personally owned.
Knowing when AI is appropriate, when it is not, where a human must decide, and how the thousand unhappy paths affect the design.
Can right-size the solution and reason about risk, reliability, cost, and return.
How quickly someone can acquire unfamiliar tools, close a skill gap, respond to feedback, and become useful in a new environment.
Shows a repeatable way of learning through building—not just consuming information.
The intrinsic itch to build, investigate, and own the outcome—even when nobody has written the ticket or supplied the clean answer.
Is energized by ambiguity, customer proximity, and being accountable for what happens next.
TIER-RELATIVE WEIGHTING
An Associate is evaluated for executional strength and upside. An experienced FDE is expected to carry more independent judgment. The dimensions stay the same; their emphasis changes.
On the Associate track, context extraction and judgment are assessed as potential—not used as an unfair senior-level gate.
THE CAREER LADDER
Strong executional signal, learning velocity, and kida. Executes a defined roadmap and develops the judgment core with senior support.
Solid across both cores. Can run a deployment with light oversight and own the system from customer context through production outcomes.
Strong technical execution, context extraction, and executive presence. Owns client judgment and leads the full engagement.
WHERE WE DRAW THE LINES
Evidence required. No score without a specific supporting example or statement.
Job-related signals only. Protected attributes are never part of the assessment.
Tier-relative review. Candidates are assessed against the level they are ready to perform.
Human accountability. The system proposes; a person approves every hiring decision.
Private by default. Scores, evidence, transcripts, and recommendations never appear on a public profile.
USE THE STANDARD