HireWebDeveloper.net

14 questions that expose a weak developer

The vetting call, scripted: 14 questions with what a good answer sounds like and the three red flags that end evaluations.

Vetting is pattern matching — here are the patterns

A weak developer does not look weak in a sales call; they look great in a sales call. The questions below are chosen because they cannot be answered well without having actually done the work. Use them on anybody — including anyone you find through this site.

Process questions

1. "Walk me through your last project — what went wrong?"

Good: specific, owns at least one mistake, describes the correction. Bad: nothing went wrong, or everything went wrong because of the client.

2. "How do you handle scope changes mid-project?"

Good: a concrete mechanism — change requests priced before work, written approval. Bad: "we're flexible" (you will pay for that flexibility in an undefined way).

3. "What happens after launch?"

Good: a support window, a handover pack, an explicit maintenance posture. Bad: silence, or "that's extra" without structure.

4. "Who exactly does the work?"

Good: named people and their roles, however many or few. Bad: "the team," indefinitely.

Technical questions (no technical knowledge required)

5. "How will you make the site fast?"

Good: mentions measurable budgets (LCP under 2.5s) and a plan for images, code and hosting. Bad: "we optimise" or a plugin name, offered as a complete answer.

6. "What happens to our Google rankings when we relaunch?"

Good: redirect mapping, content parity, monitoring — volunteered without prompting. Bad: this question being treated as novel.

7. "Show me a site you built that runs a real business."

Good: live URLs you can check on your phone, ideally with contactable owners. Bad: screenshots, NDA walls around everything, or only demo work.

8. "What would you never build on this platform?"

Good: instant, specific limits — every strong developer knows where their tools stop being the right answer. Bad: the platform can do anything.

9. "How do you back up and test restores?"

Good: automated backups plus actual restore drills. Bad: backups exist; restore has never been tested. An untested backup is a hope, not a backup.

Ownership and exit questions

10. "Who owns the code and when?"

Good: you do, on payment — said without flinching. Bad: ownership transfers on final payment of the maintenance retainer, or licensing structures that surface late.

11. "If we part ways mid-project, what do we walk away with?"

Good: repo access from day one, so the answer is "everything so far." Bad: access granted on completion — this single answer has ended businesses.

12. "What's in your standard contract?"

Good: can summarise it from memory — milestones, IP, liability caps, cancellation. Bad: has never read it.

Reference questions

13. "Can I speak to your last two clients?"

Good: yes, unprompted caveats about NDAs aside. Bad: references available only after signing.

14. "What would those clients say was your weakness?"

Good: an honest, survivable answer. Bad: "nothing comes to mind."

The three red flags that end evaluations

  1. No version control / no repo access. Non-negotiable. A developer who cannot show you a Git repository in 2026 is not a developer you can exit cleanly, ever.
  2. Quotes without a written spec. Fixed prices with nothing fixed in writing is not a quote; it is a mood.
  3. Bad-mouths every past client. You are hearing your future from the other side.

Scorecard version: every "good" answer above is a point. Twelve-plus is a conversation worth having. Below eight, keep looking — the rates are known, and at these prices, vetting is the cheapest quality control you will ever buy.

Quarterly, and only when the numbers move

Get the rate report before you negotiate.

Updated rate bands across the major stacks and regions, plus what changed and why. No other email.

Ready to put this guide to work?

Six-question brief, scoped quote within two business days, and every term from the contract guide — in the actual contract.