Candidate Scoring
Candidate Evaluation Scoring Report: TMGOC Full Stack Developers (.NET + Modern JavaScript + Azure)
Complete
Candidate scoring report is ready.
Scoring Preview
Candidate Evaluation Scoring Report: TMGOC Full Stack Developers (.NET + Modern JavaScript + Azure) Two India-based full-stack developers for a remote six-month pod assignment, requiring 3-5 years of commercial experience, strong C#/.NET and ASP.NET Core Web API skills, modern JavaScript frontend capability, SQL/data-access depth, Azure App Services/Functions/Managed Identity exposure, testing, ownership, and three hours of daily U.S. Pacific overlap. Scoring Notes The submitted evaluation files provided here contain the checklist/questions but no completed candidate answers, examples, assignment content, availability response, or AI-use response; practical depth is therefore scored conservatively. Resumes were used to corroborate likely role fit, but resume claims were not given full credit where the evaluation did not provide practical examples. Overall score is the weighted sum of 0-10 criterion scores, converted to 100. Scoring Parameters - .NET backend and API depth (25): Evidence of C#, ASP.NET Core Web API, REST design, secure backend services, architecture patterns, async/DI, and service implementation depth. - Modern JavaScript frontend depth (15): Evidence of production work with React, Angular, Next.js, Vue, TypeScript, component workflows, forms, and API integration. - SQL, data access, and performance (15): Evidence of relational schema work, EF Core/Dapper/LINQ, migrations, indexing, query optimization, and performance diagnosis. - Azure, deployment, and DevOps fit (15): Evidence of Azure App Services, Azure Functions, Managed Identity, storage, monitoring, CI/CD, Docker, or related cloud deployment work. - End-to-end ownership, testing, and problem solving (20): Evidence of owning features across backend, frontend, database, testing, release, defect investigation, code review, and practical engineering judgment. - Communication, assignment completion, and operating fit (10): Quality and specificity of submitted evaluation, availability for India remote work with U.S. Pacific overlap, six-month commitment, stakeholder collaboration, and accountability for AI-assisted work. Candidate Ranking - Dhruti Patel: 60/100 - Possible shortlist - Ajinkya Anantrao Pawar: 58/100 - Needs careful review - Chandra Kant Sharma: 54/100 - Needs careful review - Ashish Kakadiya: 48/100 - Needs careful review - Abhijeet: 6/100 - Do not shortlist Dhruti Patel Resume match is confident by name: DHRUTI evaluation file to Patel_Dhruti_Dotnet CV.pdf. Resume aligns strongly with the requested 3-5 year range and backend/Azure stack, with Angular 16, React, TypeScript, SQL Server/PostgreSQL, EF Core, Dapper, Azure Functions, Blob Storage, Key Vault, and Azure DevOps. However, the submitted evaluation content is blank in the supplied material, so practical examples, assignment quality, availability, and communication evidence are missing. .NET backend and API depth: 7/10 - Resume claims .NET 8 Web APIs, ASP.NET Core, Clean Architecture, microservices, REST integrations, authentication, and identity verification workflows; no completed evaluation example was provided. Modern JavaScript frontend depth: 6/10 - Resume lists Angular 16, React, and TypeScript, and states Angular application work, but the evaluation provides no real feature example. SQL, data access, and performance: 6/10 - Resume lists SQL Server, PostgreSQL, MongoDB, EF Core, Dapper, and database optimization, but no specific submitted database task is evidenced. Azure, deployment, and DevOps fit: 7/10 - Resume mentions Azure Functions, Blob Storage, Key Vault, App Services, App Insights, API Management, and Azure DevOps CI/CD; Managed Identity is not specifically evidenced. End-to-end ownership, testing, and problem solving: 5/10 - Resume includes team lead work and migrations, but testing depth is thin and the practical evaluation was not completed in the supplied evidence. Communication, assignment completion, and operating fit: 3/10 - No submitted answers, assignment, overlap window, start date, or AI-use response were provided. Strong points: - Best apparent match to the SOW experience band with 4+ years and current .NET/Azure work. - Resume shows strong backend alignment: .NET 8 Web APIs, Clean Architecture, integrations, authentication workflows, and migration from legacy .NET Framework. - Resume includes Azure Functions, Blob Storage, Key Vault, Azure DevOps CI/CD, Angular 16, React, TypeScript, EF Core, and Dapper. Weak points: - Supplied evaluation is blank, so there is no practical assignment evidence. - Resume summary positions her mainly as a .NET Backend Developer, so true full-stack frontend ownership needs validation. - Testing evidence is limited to SonarQube/code quality tooling; unit/integration test ownership is not clear. Probe further: - Ask her to walk through one recent .NET 8 API feature she personally owned, including endpoint design, EF Core/Dapper use, validation, auth, tests, and release path. - Ask for a concrete Angular 16 or React feature: component structure, state handling, API integration, validation, and bugs she resolved. - Verify Azure hands-on depth, especially App Services, Functions, Key Vault, Managed Identity, App Insights, and CI/CD ownership. - Ask her to reproduce a small task-management API plus UI flow live or on a whiteboard because the submitted assignment evidence is missing. Ajinkya Anantrao Pawar Resume match is confident by name: AJINKYA evaluation file to ajinkya_pawar_resume.pdf. Resume claims broad .NET full-stack, Angular/React, SQL, Azure, Docker/Kubernetes, microservices, xUnit, and leadership exposure. However, the evaluation supplied here is blank, and the resume has date/project inconsistencies, including roles/projects extending to Apr 2026 while the current date context is July 25, 2026 but the employment timeline needs verification. .NET backend and API depth: 7/10 - Resume claims ASP.NET Core 8, Web API, EF Core, microservices, Kafka, Azure Service Bus, SignalR, Redis, gRPC, and high-scale systems; no evaluation example supports practical ownership. Modern JavaScript frontend depth: 6/10 - Resume lists Angular, React.js, and TypeScript with multiple modules, but no submitted feature example is present. SQL, data access, and performance: 7/10 - Resume claims SQL Server, PostgreSQL, MongoDB, Redis, EF Core, stored procedure optimization, and latency reduction; practical database task is missing from evaluation. Azure, deployment, and DevOps fit: 6/10 - Resume lists Azure, Azure DevOps, Docker, Kubernetes, CI/CD, AKS, and Azure Service Bus, but App Services, Azure Functions, and Managed Identity are not clearly evidenced. End-to-end ownership, testing, and problem solving: 5/10 - Resume claims technical lead, 25+ microservices, xUnit coverage, mentoring, and production metrics, but these are unsupported by evaluation examples and should be verified carefully. Communication, assignment completion, and operating fit: 2/10 - No completed checklist answers, short assignment, availability, start date, or AI-use response were supplied. Strong points: - Resume has broad stack coverage: ASP.NET Core, Angular, React, SQL Server, EF Core, Azure, Docker/Kubernetes, Redis, Kafka, and xUnit. - Claims relevant domain exposure in banking, HRMS, and insurance systems. - Claims seniority signals such as technical lead work, mentoring, CI/CD ownership, and production-scale performance metrics. Weak points: - Supplied evaluation is blank, so practical communication and assignment evidence are absent. - Several resume claims are very broad and metric-heavy without supporting examples in the evaluation. - Role history and project dates need clarification because multiple Radamatic projects are listed for the same May 2025-Apr 2026 period. Probe further: - Ask him to pick one claimed system and explain exactly what he personally built, what the team built, and how the architecture was deployed. - Ask for a live design of the task-management feature covering API contract, EF Core model, frontend components, tests, and Azure deployment. - Verify whether he has hands-on Azure App Services, Azure Functions, and Managed Identity experience, not only Azure/Kubernetes exposure. - Probe resume metrics such as 500K daily requests, 85% coverage, and migration savings with concrete artifacts, PR examples, or architecture walkthroughs. Chandra Kant Sharma Resume match is confident by name: CHANDRA evaluation file to Chandra_Kant_Sharma1 CV.pdf. Resume shows substantial full-stack .NET, Angular/React, SQL Server/MongoDB, JWT/RBAC, client coordination, production support, and ERP/CRM work. Main concerns are that the supplied evaluation is blank and the resume indicates 7+ years of experience, above the SOW target of approximately 3-5 years. .NET backend and API depth: 7/10 - Resume includes ASP.NET Core Web API, ASP.NET MVC, C#, Repository Pattern, REST APIs, JWT, RBAC, and ERP/CRM backend modules; no evaluation example was provided. Modern JavaScript frontend depth: 6/10 - Resume includes Angular and React project work, but no submitted production feature example is available. SQL, data access, and performance: 6/10 - Resume states SQL Server, MongoDB, indexing, LINQ optimization, stored procedures, database locks, and query tuning; evaluation evidence is missing. Azure, deployment, and DevOps fit: 4/10 - Resume lists Microsoft Azure and one Azure-tagged CRM project, but does not evidence App Services, Functions, Managed Identity, CI/CD, or deployment specifics. End-to-end ownership, testing, and problem solving: 5/10 - Resume includes client coordination, production bug fixing, unit tests, and full-stack module work, but no completed assignment or practical defect narrative was supplied. Communication, assignment completion, and operating fit: 3/10 - Resume says available immediately, but the evaluation did not provide overlap window, commitment, assignment, or candidate answers. Strong points: - Resume shows credible full-stack ERP/CRM delivery across ASP.NET Core Web API, Angular, React, SQL Server, MongoDB, JWT/RBAC, and production support. - Client coordination and requirements gathering are explicitly listed. - Experience resolving production bugs and database locks is relevant to the role's cross-layer problem solving expectations. Weak points: - Supplied evaluation is blank, so practical depth and assignment quality cannot be assessed. - 7+ years of experience is above the SOW target of approximately 3-5 years and may affect fit for the pod member level/rate. - Azure evidence is too thin for a role that specifically asks for Azure App Services, Azure Functions, and Managed Identity. Probe further: - Ask him to walk through one ERP or CRM feature end-to-end, including API, Angular/React UI, SQL/MongoDB design, validation, testing, and release. - Verify hands-on Azure deployment experience, specifically App Services, Functions, Managed Identity, monitoring, and CI/CD. - Clarify whether he is comfortable with the target role level and commercial model despite having 7+ years of experience. - Ask for a concrete production defect investigation across UI, API, database, or Azure because the evaluation defect answer is missing. Ashish Kakadiya Resume match is confident by name: ASHISH evaluation file to Ashish_Kakadiya_Resume.pdf. Resume shows strong .NET, MVC/Core, Web API, EF Core, SQL Server, integrations, Hangfire, CQRS/MediatR, nopCommerce, and AI-assisted development. Fit is weaker on modern JavaScript frameworks because the resume emphasizes JavaScript, jQuery, Ajax, Bootstrap, and nopCommerce rather than React/Angular/TypeScript. The supplied evaluation is blank. .NET backend and API depth: 7/10 - Resume shows strong ASP.NET Core, .NET 8/9, Web API, EF Core, CQRS/MediatR, Hangfire, SOAP/API integrations, and N-tier/microservices exposure; no evaluation backend example is supplied. Modern JavaScript frontend depth: 3/10 - Resume lists HTML, CSS, JavaScript, jQuery, Ajax, Bootstrap, and nopCommerce frontend work, but no React, Angular, Vue, Next.js, or TypeScript production evidence is shown. SQL, data access, and performance: 6/10 - Resume includes MS SQL Server, database design, query optimization, EF/EF Core, and reporting; no completed evaluation database example exists. Azure, deployment, and DevOps fit: 4/10 - Resume mentions Microsoft Azure and Azure Cloud Services, plus IIS/VPS deployment, but does not provide App Services, Functions, Managed Identity, Azure DevOps, or CI/CD detail. End-to-end ownership, testing, and problem solving: 5/10 - Resume claims full project lifecycle, client communication, debugging, documentation, mentorship, and integrations; testing evidence is limited and the assignment is missing. Communication, assignment completion, and operating fit: 3/10 - Resume discloses extensive AI-assisted development use, which is acceptable but should be probed; no evaluation answers, availability, or start date were supplied. Strong points: - Strong .NET backend and integration profile with .NET 8, EF Core, MediatR/CQRS, Hangfire, SOAP services, third-party API integration, and SQL Server. - Resume includes e-commerce/nopCommerce, asset management, AI application, and Azure integration projects. - AI-assisted development is disclosed openly and framed around architecture, debugging, refactoring, and documentation. Weak points: - Supplied evaluation is blank, so there is no practical assignment or role-specific answer evidence. - Modern JavaScript framework fit is weak relative to the JD; resume does not show clear React/Angular/TypeScript production work. - Azure details are generic and do not evidence App Services, Azure Functions, Managed Identity, or Azure DevOps CI/CD. Probe further: - Ask whether he has production React, Angular, Vue, Next.js, or TypeScript experience; if yes, request a concrete feature walkthrough. - Ask him to live-outline the task-management assignment without AI assistance, covering REST API, frontend component structure, validation, tests, and Azure deployment. - Probe how he validates AI-generated code for security, design, tests, and maintainability using one real example. - Verify Azure hands-on depth beyond generic cloud-service exposure. Abhijeet Candidate label derived from ABHIJEET evaluation filename and AbhijeetKumar CV.pdf. The evaluation supplied here is blank, and the resume text was not extractable in the supplied content. There is therefore no usable evidence for technical depth, practical assignment performance, availability, or operating fit. .NET backend and API depth: 1/10 - No extractable resume evidence and no completed evaluation response. Modern JavaScript frontend depth: 0/10 - No evidence provided. SQL, data access, and performance: 0/10 - No evidence provided. Azure, deployment, and DevOps fit: 0/10 - No evidence provided. End-to-end ownership, testing, and problem solving: 1/10 - Candidate submitted file names exist, but no practical content is available in the supplied material. Communication, assignment completion, and operating fit: 2/10 - No assignment answers, availability, start date, or collaboration evidence provided. Strong points: - A resume file and evaluation file were supplied, but their usable content is unavailable in the provided extract. Weak points: - No completed evaluation answers were supplied. - Resume has no extractable text in the supplied content. - No evidence for .NET, modern JavaScript, Azure, SQL, testing, ownership, availability, or communication fit. Probe further: - Request a readable resume and completed evaluation before interview consideration. - If reconsidered, ask him to complete the task-management assignment and walk through it live. - Verify identity/matching details because the only match evidence is the Abhijeet name in filenames.