I think that matrix is a good tool. It is objective, and it does seem "the least you can do" - so in other words if you tick all the boxes you are doing OK, and

I think that matrix is a good tool. It is objective, and it does seem "the least you can do" - so in other words if you tick all the boxes you are doing OK, and if there are some missing that is definitely stuff to work on. Excelling would be to go beyond the matrix. And I think this is how the matrix should be. I sort of hate that we have to define it so formally, and it would be nice to think "she's a good dev" and that instinct is it. But in reality a benchmark is needed to be fair and prevent bias. In addition to be a good engineer you need to code, and coding tests are a way to find out. Ideal ones would be open ended, plenty of time, and with the interviewer "searching for success" to try to counter interview nerves. "Oh yeah I made that mistake I should have done XYZ" is as good as getting it right first time. In an ideal world there would be some standard basic coding tests to avoid fizzbuzzing everyone. Sort of like AWS or Azure certifications, but for actual coding, that are respected, as a base level. Do them once every 2-3 years say and that is your passport past some useless interview stages. But I digress!