Candidate Scoring
Candidate Evaluation Scoring Report: Full Stack Developer (.NET, Modern JavaScript, Azure)
Complete
Candidate scoring report is ready.
Scoring Preview
Candidate Evaluation Scoring Report: Full Stack Developer (.NET, Modern JavaScript, Azure) India-based full-time contract full-stack developer for the TMGOC pod, requiring 3-5 years of commercial experience, strong C#/.NET and ASP.NET Core Web API capability, modern JavaScript frontend experience, SQL/data access skills, Azure services exposure, testing, collaboration, and 3 hours of daily U.S. Pacific overlap. Scoring Notes Submitted evaluations were treated as the primary evidence of practical depth and communication; resumes were used to corroborate and identify follow-up areas. Resume claims without matching practical examples in the evaluation were scored conservatively. AI-assisted coding disclosure or polished writing was not treated as disqualifying; generic or unusually polished answers were converted into interviewer probes about ownership and practical depth. Strong .NET/C# and ASP.NET Core Web API capability was weighted heavily because the JD and SOW identify it as the priority screening criterion. Scoring Parameters - C#/.NET API capability (25): Commercial ASP.NET Core/Web API, C#, REST design, dependency injection, async work, validation, auth, logging, and evidence of personally built backend services. - Frontend and full-stack delivery (15): Production use of React, Angular, Vue, TypeScript or similar, including components, forms, state, API integration, responsiveness, and willingness to work across layers. - SQL and data access (15): Relational schema work, EF Core, Dapper or comparable data access, migrations, indexing, stored procedures, execution-plan analysis, and performance troubleshooting. - Azure, deployment and DevOps (15): Hands-on Azure App Services, Azure Functions, Managed Identity, Key Vault, Azure SQL, Azure DevOps, CI/CD, monitoring, release support, and cloud troubleshooting. - Engineering judgment, security and testing (20): Feature design, auth and authorization reasoning, validation, error handling, testing strategy, defect diagnosis, observability, and responsible AI-assisted development. - Ownership, collaboration and operating fit (10): End-to-end ownership, work with leads, QA and stakeholders, communication clarity, full-time availability, start timing, and U.S. Pacific overlap readiness. Candidate Ranking - Ramya Manapati: 82/100 - Strong shortlist - Veeresha S: 78/100 - Strong shortlist - Mrugnayani Gopal Pande: 67/100 - Possible shortlist - Shreyash Shinde: 55/100 - Do not shortlist - Brijesh Vishwakarma: 37/100 - Do not shortlist Ramya Manapati Matched evaluation to Ramya_Manapati_Developer.pdf by exact name, email, phone and overlapping DWP Global/Infosys history. Strongest balanced fit: current .NET Core Web API, Angular, SQL Server, JWT/RBAC, Azure App Services and Azure DevOps evidence is specific and resume-corroborated, with a candid gap around personally setting up Managed Identity. C#/.NET API capability: 8/10 - Evaluation describes ASP.NET Core Web APIs for NMED permit tracking/reporting with JWT/RBAC, DI, DTO validation, async access and xUnit; resume corroborates .NET Core Web API and ASP.NET MVC work. Frontend and full-stack delivery: 8/10 - Production Angular/TypeScript evidence includes reactive forms, typed service layer, data entry, status tracking and report generation; resume confirms Angular across NMED and Finacle. SQL and data access: 8/10 - Strong SQL Server query, stored procedure, indexing and execution-plan evidence for compliance/audit datasets and high-traffic search; no deep schema/migration example beyond general feature structure. Azure, deployment and DevOps: 7/10 - Hands-on Azure App Services, Azure DevOps CI/CD and monitoring are evidenced; candidate explicitly has not personally set up Managed Identity end-to-end. Engineering judgment, security and testing: 8/10 - Clear answers on REST structure, validation, status codes, JWT auth vs authorization, xUnit tests, performance diagnosis and accountable use of Copilot/Claude. Ownership, collaboration and operating fit: 8/10 - Good end-to-end ownership narrative, QA/DevOps collaboration, immediate availability and 8:30 PM-11:30 PM IST overlap. Strong points: - Evaluation and resume align closely on .NET Core Web API, Angular, SQL Server, JWT/RBAC, Azure DevOps and Azure App Services. - Gives concrete current-project examples from NMED and prior Finacle work rather than only generic claims. - Responsible AI use is disclosed with a specific Copilot full-SDLC POC and xUnit test generation example. Weak points: - Managed Identity and OIDC/Entra ID setup are awareness areas rather than proven hands-on ownership. - Azure Functions are not evidenced in practical work. - Only 3.5 years of experience, so still within target range but not a senior independent architect profile. Probe further: - Ask her to walk through the NMED permit submission feature end to end: database table/procedure, API endpoint, Angular form, auth rule, test, and release path. - Ask for one concrete xUnit test she personally reviewed or wrote and what bug or auth edge case it protected. - Give a live scenario requiring Managed Identity or Key Vault and ask how she would configure it safely in Azure App Service. Veeresha S Matched evaluation to Veeresha_SV_DotNet_fullstack_Developer.pdf by name, email, phone and overlapping TicketManagement/.NET full-stack history. Strong role fit on .NET, React/Angular, SQL optimization, auth and troubleshooting, but some submitted answers are highly polished and include self-review wording, so practical ownership should be verified carefully. C#/.NET API capability: 8/10 - Resume has strong .NET Core/Web API, microservices, JWT, Swagger and xUnit signals; evaluation gives broad .NET stack detail, though the direct 4.1 backend example is less specific than expected. Frontend and full-stack delivery: 8/10 - Evaluation gives a credible React contact import feature with hooks, Axios, file upload, validation and UX states; resume also lists Angular/React projects. SQL and data access: 8/10 - Strongest data evidence among the group: indexing, execution plans, EF Core vs Dapper tradeoff, reporting queries, migrations and resume impact claims around latency reduction. Azure, deployment and DevOps: 7/10 - Evaluation claims App Service, Key Vault, Azure SQL, Application Insights and Azure DevOps CI/CD; candidate says Azure Functions and Managed Identity are knowledge areas, not primary production experience. Engineering judgment, security and testing: 8/10 - Detailed auth, validation, error handling, testing, defect diagnosis and AI accountability answers; some phrasing appears generic or generated and should be probed for ownership. Ownership, collaboration and operating fit: 8/10 - Good collaboration and release-support examples with immediate availability and 8:00 PM-11:00 PM IST overlap; resume dates show gaps/short tenures that need clarification. Strong points: - Evaluation shows broad full-stack thinking across React, ASP.NET Core API, SQL, reporting, auth, Azure deployment and monitoring. - Resume adds strong SQL optimization, L3 production support, xUnit, microservices, Redis and multi-tenant ticketing signals. - Availability and overlap fit are clear. Weak points: - Direct ASP.NET Core backend example in the evaluation is partly responsibility-based rather than a concrete service walkthrough. - Azure Functions and Managed Identity are not evidenced as production-owned work. - Resume timeline includes short roles and gaps that may affect the stated 3+ years of continuous commercial experience. Probe further: - Ask him to walk through the Ticket Management Solution field defect or Contact Import feature across React, API, EF/Dapper, SQL and CSV reporting. - Ask what he personally owned versus what the technical lead or team owned in the multi-tenant/API Gateway and Redis claims. - Ask him to reproduce a small ASP.NET Core endpoint with validation, authorization and one xUnit test live. - Clarify employment dates, gaps, and the exact production Azure services he personally configured. Mrugnayani Gopal Pande Matched evaluation to Mrugnayani_.net_CV.pdf by name, phone and Jalgi Technologies history; note the evaluation email spelling differs from the resume email. Candidate has relevant .NET/Angular/SQL/JWT experience, but the evaluation is more generic than the top candidates and Azure production evidence is weak. C#/.NET API capability: 7/10 - Evaluation describes layered ASP.NET Core Web API, EF Core, JWT/RBAC, DI, validation, logging and async; resume corroborates banking and insurance .NET API work, but examples are generic Customer Management rather than clearly tied to named resume projects. Frontend and full-stack delivery: 7/10 - Angular production feature answer covers reactive forms, HttpClient, Angular Material tables, pagination and sorting; resume confirms Angular integration. SQL and data access: 8/10 - Good SQL Server, EF Core, indexing, execution-plan and pagination evidence, including a claimed response-time improvement; resume supports stored procedure and database ownership. Azure, deployment and DevOps: 4/10 - Evaluation says Azure experience is mainly learning/practice and that professional work focused on API, SQL and Angular; resume lists Azure/Azure DevOps but lacks production detail. Engineering judgment, security and testing: 7/10 - Solid standard answers on feature structure, JWT, validation, error handling, Postman, unit/integration testing and responsible AI use, but many details are broad rather than project-specific. Ownership, collaboration and operating fit: 8/10 - Clear remote overlap of 7:00 PM-10:00 PM IST and specific start date of August 4, 2026; collaboration answer is acceptable but generic. Strong points: - Relevant 4.2-4.3 years of .NET, ASP.NET Core, EF Core, SQL Server, JWT/RBAC and Angular experience across evaluation and resume. - Good database performance answer with execution plans, indexes, pagination and AsNoTracking. - Availability is clear, with a short notice period and stated U.S. overlap window. Weak points: - Azure App Services, Azure Functions and Managed Identity are not evidenced as hands-on production work. - Evaluation examples rely on a generic Customer Management module not clearly present in the resume projects. - No GitHub/portfolio/code sample was provided. Probe further: - Ask her to map the submitted Customer Management example to a real resume project and identify exactly what she personally built. - Ask her to walk through the claimed 15-20 second to under-2-second SQL/API performance fix, including query before/after and how it was measured. - Verify the email spelling mismatch between evaluation and resume. - Ask her to explain how she would deploy this API to Azure App Service with Key Vault or Managed Identity, since production Azure evidence is limited. Shreyash Shinde Matched shreyash_.format_new.docx to Shreyas_Shinde__resume.pdf by name variant, email and phone. Candidate communicates practical full-stack experience well, but he explicitly states he has not built an ASP.NET Core Web API and his resume is Java/Spring Boot-centered, which conflicts with the primary .NET/C# requirement. C#/.NET API capability: 2/10 - Candidate explicitly says he has not built an ASP.NET Core Web API; .NET answers are mostly theoretical or translated from Java/Spring experience. Frontend and full-stack delivery: 8/10 - Good React/Angular production evidence with user-management UI, forms, Axios/API integration, pagination and QA support; resume corroborates Angular 17 and React. SQL and data access: 7/10 - Strong relational database experience in PostgreSQL/MySQL/SQL Server, schema design, indexes, Hibernate/JPA query review and pagination, but not EF Core/Dapper. Azure, deployment and DevOps: 6/10 - Evaluation claims Azure App Services, Functions, Managed Identity, Key Vault and Azure DevOps; resume mentions Azure but project deployment examples are mainly AWS, so Azure depth needs verification. Engineering judgment, security and testing: 6/10 - Good general engineering answers around OAuth/OIDC/JWT, validation, tests and troubleshooting, but most practical evidence is Java/Spring, not .NET. Ownership, collaboration and operating fit: 6/10 - Collaboration and availability answers are usable, but total experience field was left blank and overlap was given as PT rather than a clear IST working window. Strong points: - Strong Java/Spring Boot full-stack background with Angular/React, SQL, security, JUnit/Mockito and Postman evidence. - Evaluation is transparent about the lack of ASP.NET Core Web API experience. - Resume shows healthcare, loan management and travel/accommodation domain exposure. Weak points: - Primary mandatory requirement is strong C#/.NET and ASP.NET Core Web API; candidate lacks commercial evidence there. - EF Core, Dapper, C# async/DI and .NET-specific testing are not supported by practical work examples. - Availability answer does not provide the requested India-time overlap window. Probe further: - Only proceed if the team is open to a Java-to-.NET transition; otherwise the stack mismatch is material. - Ask him to build a small ASP.NET Core API endpoint live to assess C#/.NET ramp-up feasibility. - Ask him to explain which Azure App Services, Functions and Managed Identity work he personally configured, since the resume emphasizes AWS in projects. - Ask for a clear recurring IST overlap window and confirm full-time dedicated availability. Brijesh Vishwakarma Matched evaluation to BRIJESH_VISHWAKARMA.pdf by exact name, email and phone. Resume has relevant .NET full-stack claims, but the submitted evaluation is too sparse to evidence practical depth; the short assignment is incomplete and several answers are one-line summaries. C#/.NET API capability: 5/10 - Resume claims .NET Core/MVC, C#, REST APIs and EF; evaluation only says he built ASP.NET Core/Web API services with validation, DI, async and testing, without a concrete example. Frontend and full-stack delivery: 4/10 - Resume lists Angular, Vue.js, JavaScript and dashboards; evaluation gives only a brief mention of enterprise dashboards/forms/API integrations. SQL and data access: 4/10 - Resume lists SQL Server, PostgreSQL, MySQL, EF and ADO.NET, but evaluation provides no specific schema, indexing, query optimization or performance example. Azure, deployment and DevOps: 2/10 - Evidence is limited to Azure DevOps, IIS deployment and AZ-900; no hands-on Azure App Services, Azure Functions or Managed Identity example. Engineering judgment, security and testing: 2/10 - Feature structure, auth, defect diagnosis, AI use and short assignment answers are very brief; the assignment fields are incomplete and partly misplaced. Ownership, collaboration and operating fit: 4/10 - Resume suggests enterprise delivery across ITI, Tech Mahindra and HGS, but evaluation gives no concrete collaboration story, no clear IST overlap, and a 90-day/ASAP notice conflict. Strong points: - Resume aligns nominally with .NET full-stack, Angular/Vue, SQL Server/PostgreSQL, Azure DevOps, Git and IIS. - Finance, mutual fund, government/defence and enterprise dashboard exposure may be useful if verified. - AZ-900 certification is listed. Weak points: - Submitted practical evaluation is sparse and does not demonstrate hands-on depth. - Short assignment is incomplete and does not provide a usable REST contract, component design, test plan or Azure deployment plan. - No evidence of Azure App Services, Azure Functions, Managed Identity, OIDC/Entra ID or production cloud operations. - Notice period and start availability are unclear. Probe further: - Ask him to walk through one claimed ITI or Tech Mahindra feature end to end, including API, UI, SQL, validation, tests and deployment. - Have him reproduce a small task-management API contract and Angular component approach live, since the submitted assignment is incomplete. - Ask for a concrete SQL performance or schema-change example with before/after impact. - Clarify actual notice period, earliest start date and daily IST overlap window.