None that I know of. Any system can be gamed. Most of the interview systems focus on some sort of knowledge and learned behavior. But there's no way to truly gage how hard someone will work.

I've been told in the past that I'm smart, have a lot of potential, and work hard. After years of being screwed over and passed over by the company, I no longer work hard. On paper I have the right credentials. I present myself well in interviews. I usually ace the behavioral portion because I know what they want hear and my past experiences provide ample scenarios to choose from. But that doesn't change the fact that I've been conditioned not to trust my employer and that my hard work will be unrewarded. So I probably won't try hard at my next job either.

The only three things that matter:

- situational thinking / problem analysis (what do you assume, why do you assume it, how do you clarify extremely vague questions)

- culture fit (are you going to get along with everyone else on the team)

- curiosity / willingness to learn / change tracks as the group/company's needs change through time

Everything else is tertiary at best

RE the last point: if the candidate mentions side projects, I'll typically probe there. It shows me they have a genuine curiosity and probably a motor. Anyone with a motor and is a good cultural fit will succeed quickly.

Side projects may show curiosity ... but I definitely don't gate-keep if you don't have any side projects

Side projects outside their "lane" are far more interesting to me (eg you're a Rust developer and on the side breed cornish game hens, for example) - demonstrating that you're "an and"[0] shows you can draw from multiple fields to find solutions

----------

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30855775

Fair point, but it is a good indicator.

You described a junior.

A good junior will at some point gather experience and become a good senior. Which of those aspects would you say change when they become a senior? Otherwise I don't see why this doesn't apply to seniors as well, a bad junior is unlikely to learn a lot while a good junior will make the most of their experience and become a great senior, so looking for the same things in seniors as you do juniors makes sense.

Checking for "senior" skills doesn't make sense however, everyone learns different things from their experience, if you gatekeep based on things you learned as a senior then you will miss out on a lot of experience in things you didn't experience yourself, it is much better to just test for good core attributes and value their years of experience based on those, as other than that there is no way to properly evaluate high level senior level skills unless they have the exact same skills as you.

Nope - I described everyone I've ever interviewed who's been any good, from intern to senior architect

We do code reviews in our interviews and it’s very effective in 20 min of being an indicator whether the candidate is going to be a good programmer