The Portfolio Rubric Data Science Hiring Managers Use
A practical hiring-manager style framework that you can use
Picture this scenario: You spend weeks polishing a Kaggle competition notebook with immaculate code, fancy plots, and a near-perfect model. You feel confident. Then, in an interview, the hiring manager asks, “How would this work with messy real data? Where is the business decision here?” You scramble for an answer. Awkward silence. The truth is that Kaggle taught you how to compete, not how to solve real business problems. In fact, “most recruiters don’t care about your Kaggle rank”. They care about something else entirely.
Too many data science portfolios list projects that impress on the surface but fail to deliver real value. As a hiring manager who’s screened dozens of candidates, they have noticed a persistent gap between what candidates showcase and what teams actually need. The typical portfolio is just a list of projects, but what they are looking for is evidence of impact, realism, and critical thinking behind them.
The good news is that you don’t need a dozen fancy projects to stand out. You need the right qualities in whichever projects you present. Below, I’ll share the rubric hiring managers use to evaluate data science portfolios, which is a simple scoring framework covering the five areas that matter for hiring.
We’ll also look at common mistakes to avoid and quick fixes to upgrade your existing portfolio. By the end, you’ll understand exactly what hiring managers are looking for and how to demonstrate it in your portfolio.
Let’s get into it.
Common Portfolio Mistakes (What to Avoid)
Even experienced data scientists fall into some classic portfolio traps. Before we discuss what to do right, let’s highlight what not to do. Here are some common mistakes that cause portfolios to miss the mark:
Using Only Toy or Overused Datasets: Relying on Titanic survival predictions or Iris classification projects shows a lack of originality. Recruiters have seen these portfolios thousands of times, and a collection full of such washed-out projects will bore them. It also indicates you haven’t worked with realistic data. An industry insider said, “I hate seeing people use common Kaggle datasets like Titanic or Iris. Instead, try to scrape your own data or find unique sources.” Overall, if your data is pre-cleaned and common, it doesn’t demonstrate your ability to handle real-world data quirks.
No Clear Problem or Purpose: Failing to define a business question or real-world purpose is a common mistake. A portfolio project like “I built a neural network to classify images” without context won’t impress hiring managers. They want to know why you did it, whether it solves a meaningful problem or was just a class assignment. If you can’t explain the problem and its significance, it shows a lack of business thinking. Many portfolios fail not due to technical skill but because they don’t communicate value. Avoid projects without a narrative of who benefits or what decisions can be made. For example, don’t say “it was a bootcamp group project” when asked why you chose it, show that you addressed a problem you care about or an issue relevant to a business.
Metrics Over Impact (Model-Centric Thinking): Many candidates focus on achieving 99% accuracy in a model and present that as the victory, but hiring managers are wary of this. Focusing on metrics instead of business value is a mistake. For example, a churn prediction model with an AUC of 94% sounds good but has little value if it mostly flags customers who no longer use the product. A narrow focus on metrics often means ignoring whether the solution solves the core problem. Employers want you to deliver value, so don’t just brag about high scores but show you understand the “so what?” of your results.
Ignoring Deployment and Next Steps: A common mistake is treating projects as standalone exercises. Creating a model isn’t enough; its value lies in deployment and usage. If your projects don’t mention how to implement, use, or the next steps after building the model, hiring managers notice. Most employers won’t consider you a serious candidate for senior employment without knowledge of deployment, retraining, or monitoring. You don’t need to be an MLOps expert, but showing deployment ideas (even hypothetical) is crucial.
Poor Presentation and Communication: Many portfolios are hard to read, lacking README files, commentary, or visualizations, making it tiring for reviewers to understand your project. A hiring manager said, “I hate seeing a big mess of code with no README or TL;DR.” Without a clear summary or visual results, your work can be overlooked. Hiring managers glance through dozens of portfolios, so if yours doesn’t quickly highlight key points, it likely won’t hold attention. Another manager said, “I ignore side projects unless they show real impact... I need impact, not just some model.” Showing impact also means presenting insights simply—pictures or charts often communicate more effectively than words. Portfolios without an executive summary, well-designed graphs, or an organized story are at a disadvantage.
Avoid these pitfalls:
Steer clear of overly common projects,
Always define the problem and the value,
Think beyond accuracy alone,
Consider real-world deployment,
Present your work clearly.
Next, we’ll discuss exactly what hiring managers are looking for instead and how to ensure your portfolio checks those boxes.
What Hiring Managers Are Actually Looking For
So what does impress a hiring manager in a data science portfolio? In a word: impact.
They want to see proof that you can apply data science to solve real problems, not just toy exercises. From my experience, this boils down to a few key qualities. Specifically, they evaluate portfolios across five dimensions that map to real on-the-job success:
Problem Framing: Did you clearly define the problem you tackled and why it matters? Great portfolios start with a well-scoped question or business problem, not just a technique. (Is it a meaningful, non-trivial problem, and do you understand the context around it?)
Data Realism: Did you use data that’s reflective of real-world complexity? This includes working with messy or authentic datasets, not only pristine samples. It shows you can handle real data challenges and demonstrates curiosity in sourcing data beyond the usual examples.
Evaluation Rigor: How do you measure success, and how trustworthy are your results? We look for the use of proper metrics, baseline comparisons, validation techniques, and an honest assessment of model performance. In short, are you skeptical about metrics and careful about conclusions, or are you just accepting whatever accuracy pops out?
Deployment Thinking: Did you consider what happens after the model is built? That means thinking about how the solution could be deployed or used in production. For example, packaging the model, building an API, or simply discussing how a business could implement your insights. This shows a “product readiness” mindset, not just academic analysis.
Communication: Could someone who isn’t you understand and appreciate the project quickly? This covers the clarity of your writing, visualization of results, and overall storytelling. Great portfolios read almost like case studies: they draw the reader in, highlight key findings, and explain technical details in an accessible way. In fact, storytelling and clear communication are becoming increasingly important. Companies want data scientists who can clearly explain insights, not just write code.
These five categories form the Portfolio Rubric that many hiring managers use to score a portfolio. Think of each as a lens through which your project is evaluated. If your portfolio projects excel in these areas, you’re demonstrating the qualities that truly matter on the job.
In the next sections, we’ll break down each rubric category in detail. For each category, I’ll explain why it matters in real-world terms and what distinguishes an average project from an outstanding one. I’ll even provide sample scoring criteria so you can gauge where your projects might fall.
Let’s dive into the rubric that can make your portfolio a hiring manager’s dream.
The Portfolio Rubric: 5 Key Evaluation Categories
1. Problem Framing
Problem framing is about setting the stage. It’s answering: “What exact problem are you solving, and why does it matter?” A strong portfolio project doesn’t start with “I used X algorithm”; it starts with a clear question or objective. For example, instead of “I built a time series model,” good framing would be “I forecasted weekly sales to help a retailer manage inventory,” which is a specific problem with a business context.
In industry, choosing the right problem is half the battle. Companies need data scientists who focus on impactful questions, not just cool techniques. If a project lacks context, it “only shows your lack of business thinking”. Remember, a brilliant model solving an irrelevant problem is a wasted effort. Hiring managers look for whether you understood the purpose behind the project. Did you identify a stakeholder or decision-maker, and what they care about? Do you connect your results to a business outcome or insight?
For example, a candidate’s portfolio included a project “Predicting Employee Attrition.” On paper, it was a classification model with decent accuracy. But what impressed me was the framing. They introduced it as “Employee turnover prediction to inform HR retention strategies” and discussed how reducing attrition could save money. That context turned a generic model into a compelling story of business value.
How we score it (Problem Framing):
Level 1 (Needs Improvement): The project lacks a clear question or goal. It feels like a generic exercise (e.g., “I applied X algorithm to Y data” with no further context). The reader can’t tell what problem this solves or why it’s important.
Level 2 (Good): The project defines a problem, but in a somewhat generic way or without emphasizing its importance. There’s a basic problem statement (e.g., predicting house prices), but little discussion of who benefits or what one would do with this prediction. Some context is given, but it may be shallow or assumed.
Level 3 (Excellent): The project is framed around a specific, meaningful problem with real-world context. It’s immediately clear why the problem matters (e.g., “predicting equipment failure to reduce downtime costs”). The candidate explains the background and stakes: who has this problem, what decision the analysis will inform, and how success is defined. The scope is well-defined (not too broad or vague), showing the candidate knows how to translate an ambiguous idea into a concrete data question.
2. Data Realism
Data realism refers to using data and approaches that mirror real-world conditions. This means datasets that are messy, large, or obtained from authentic sources. Not just tidy CSVs everyone’s seen before. It also means demonstrating data wrangling and an understanding of data quality, rather than assuming data is perfect.
In industry, data is often messy or incomplete. Using only clean, toy datasets (like Kaggle or classroom sets) doesn’t prove you can handle real data challenges. Recruiters know anyone can run a model on Titanic or Iris; that doesn’t make you stand out. Relying on such projects may cause recruiters to ignore you, as your portfolio shows a lack of creativity. Instead, sourcing interesting datasets or demonstrating how you managed missing values, outliers, or scaling shows initiative and practical skill. A hiring manager suggests scraping your own dataset or seeking rarer datasets, rather than recycling common examples.
Imagine two candidates. Alice uses the Titanic dataset but writes as if she’s helping a cruise company improve safety, discussing the dataset's limitations (e.g., a sample of historical passengers) and how she’d gather more current data. Bob uses the Titanic dataset and just builds a classifier with 99% accuracy (on a cleaned dataset where missing ages were already handled). Alice is demonstrating data realism; Bob is not. We’re more likely to interview Alice because she’s thinking like a professional dealing with real data problems.
How we score it (Data Realism):
Level 1 (Needs Improvement): Uses only small, common datasets with no evidence of data cleaning or exploration. It appears the data was taken “as is” from a textbook or Kaggle, with no mention of missing values, anomalies, or domain specifics. No data sourcing effort is shown (the data fell into their lap). This suggests the candidate might struggle when faced with untidy real-world data.
Level 2 (Good): Uses a reasonable dataset and shows some data cleaning or feature engineering, but nothing beyond the ordinary. The dataset might still be a common one, but the project at least acknowledges data issues (e.g., “had to handle class imbalance by ...” or “combined two data sources”). There is evidence that the candidate can do basic wrangling and is aware of data limitations, though they may not have sought out truly novel data.
Level 3 (Excellent): The project uses realistic data, possibly self-collected or multi-source. The candidate may have accessed an API, scraped data, or used an open data portal to gather new data. They clearly document the data cleaning steps and challenges (e.g., handling missing data, skewed distributions, or integrating data from different sources). The approach shows creativity in data sourcing and thoroughness in preparation. It’s evident they didn’t just accept the data at face value – they explored its quality and shaped the data to fit the problem, just like one must do on real teams. This level demonstrates that the person can handle the messiness of actual business data.
3. Evaluation Rigor
Evaluation rigor means critically assessing your model’s performance and results. It’s about using the right metrics, establishing baselines, properly validating the model, and interpreting the outcomes with a skeptical eye. Rigorous evaluation answers: “How do I know my solution actually works, and how well?”
In real projects, a model is only as good as the evidence that it works for the intended purpose. Hiring managers want to see that you didn’t just run to a conclusion, but that you actually tested it. This includes simple things like comparing against a baseline (e.g., how does your model compare to a naive guess or the current solution?) and using appropriate metrics for the problem (e.g., using precision/recall for a class-imbalanced problem instead of just accuracy). It also means checking for overfitting, using cross-validation or a test set, and analyzing errors or uncertainty.
Portfolios that demonstrate evaluation rigor stand out. For instance, if you built a classifier, did you also provide a confusion matrix and discuss false positives versus false negatives in context? If you did time-series forecasting, did you hold out the last few months as a true future test? If you optimized a metric, did you consider whether that metric truly reflects business success? Showing such thoroughness tells me they can trust your work.
I recall a portfolio project on image classification where the candidate not only reported accuracy but also deliberately added noise to the images to test robustness and plotted how performance dropped. They also compared their CNN to a simpler logistic regression as a baseline. This thorough evaluation was a green flag, as it demonstrated scientific thinking and honesty about the model’s capabilities.
How we score it (Evaluation Rigor):
Level 1 (Needs Improvement): The project shows minimal evaluation. Perhaps only a single metric (like accuracy) is reported without context, or results are presented without validation (e.g., performance only on the training set or a cherry-picked example). There’s no baseline or benchmark mentioned. You can’t tell whether 90% accuracy is good or trivial, given the problem. No discussion of errors, assumptions, or limitations is present. This indicates a lack of critical thinking about the results.
Level 2 (Good): The project uses standard evaluation practices, e.g., a train/test split or cross-validation, and reports at least one appropriate metric on a held-out set. A baseline may be mentioned (e.g., “our model beats a random guess, which was 50%” or “improves over a simple linear model by 10%”). The candidate likely includes some error analysis or at least mentions possible improvements. However, the evaluation might still miss deeper issues (for example, reporting overall accuracy without noting that one class was often mispredicted, or not considering how an unbalanced dataset might skew the metric). Solid effort, but not deeply probing.
Level 3 (Excellent): The project demonstrates thorough evaluation, considering multiple performance metrics, including precision, recall, ROC, and domain-specific metrics. It establishes a clear baseline, checks for overfitting (train vs. validation curves), uses methods such as cross-validation, performs sensitivity analysis, and tests edge cases. They interpret results in context: Is the performance acceptable? (e.g., “An F1 of 0.7 means 30% issues missed, and is it acceptable in healthcare?"), and acknowledge limitations like data bias or assumptions. This rigor reflects a mindset of skepticism and decision-making focus, which we value.
4. Deployment Thinking
Deployment thinking evaluates whether you considered how the project’s solution would be used in a real-world environment. In other words, did you think beyond the notebook? This could include creating a simple web app for your model, following proper coding practices to package your project, or simply writing a paragraph on how you’d deploy and monitor the model in production.
In modern data science teams, the work doesn’t stop at insight or model training. Models often need to be integrated into products or processes. While you might not personally build the entire production pipeline, you will collaborate with engineers or hand off your work for implementation. Hiring managers, therefore, value awareness of deployment considerations. If two candidates both build a decent model, but one also sets up a Flask API or describes a plan for real-time inference, that candidate demonstrates ownership and practicality. It shows they think about reliability, data pipelines, or user impact, not just modeling.
In fact, not showing any hint of deployment or next steps can be costly. As noted earlier, employers might question how you’ll add value if “you can stick your model you-know-where if it’s not usable in production”. We test for a mindset of “production readiness,” which means you anticipate the steps needed to make your work actually run and keep running in a live setting.
Consider a portfolio project that predicts stock prices. Deployment considerations might include: “I scheduled this script to run daily and send an email alert with the latest prediction.” Or “I deployed the model as an API using Streamlit so you can try it live.” Or even, “In a real company, I’d retrain this model weekly as new data comes in and monitor the prediction error over time to detect drift.” These elements turn a good project into a great one by showing you understand the full lifecycle of ML products.
How we score it (Deployment Thinking):
Level 1 (Needs Improvement): There’s no mention of deployment or next steps. The project ends at model evaluation. It’s as if the analysis exists in isolation. There’s no consideration of how the model could be consumed (e.g., by an application or user) or maintained. The code may be very prototype-like (hard-coded paths, not modular), suggesting it’s not ready to be used elsewhere. This suggests the candidate hasn’t considered real-world implementation.
Level 2 (Good): The project shows some awareness of deployment, though it’s minimal. Perhaps the candidate structured their code well or included instructions for running the project. They might mention in passing how the model could be used (e.g., “this model could be deployed as a REST API” or “in production we’d need to retrain periodically”). There may not be an actual deployment, but there’s at least recognition of the need. Alternatively, they might have taken a small step, such as containerizing the project or using a simple dashboard to present results. It’s a hint that they know deployment is important, even if they haven’t fully demonstrated it.
Level 3 (Excellent): The project actively incorporates deployment considerations or deliverables. The candidate might have a live demo (a web app, an interactive notebook, or a command-line tool) that others can interact with. Or they provide a link to a GitHub repo with a Dockerfile and clear instructions, showing you could actually run their solution easily. They discuss how they would handle tasks such as model monitoring, data updates, scaling, and integration with existing systems. In essence, they treat the project as a product rather than just an analysis. This aligns with what many hiring managers quietly look for, which is a sense of “ownership & reliability” in how you approach your work.
5. Communication
Communication in a portfolio context refers to how well you convey the story and results of your project to others. This includes the organization of your content, the explanations you provide (in writing or orally if presented), the visualizations you choose, and the overall storytelling of the project. Essentially, if someone (technical or not) reviews your project, do they quickly grasp the what, why, and how of it?
Data science is a team sport, and often a business-facing one. It’s not enough to have a brilliant analysis; you must also communicate insights to colleagues, managers, or clients. Hiring managers, therefore, seek evidence of strong communication skills in your portfolio. A well-documented project with clear Markdown cells, captioned charts, and a logical flow demonstrates that you can explain your work.
In practical terms, good communication in a portfolio might mean having a README summary for each project, highlighting key results upfront, and guiding the reader through your process step by step. It also means tailoring the depth of technical detail to your audience. For example, explaining technical concepts or decisions in plain language where appropriate, and using visuals to make results intuitive. A common mistake (as we saw) is to dump a lot of code or an overly complex notebook without context. Instead, present a narrative such as what problem you tackled, what the data told you, what model you built, how well it worked, and what it means.
I once reviewed a candidate’s portfolio project on customer segmentation. They included a before-and-after chart showing how their clustering grouped customers in a new way, along with a short paragraph: “Segment 3 (orange in the chart) had the highest lifetime value but low engagement. This insight suggested a targeted re-engagement campaign for this group.” That single visualization and explanation conveyed the essence of the project’s impact. Compare that to someone who might simply say, “I did K-means clustering on customers,” and dump the cluster centers without context. The former demonstrates excellent communication and understanding of the audience’s needs.
How we score it (Communication):
Level 1 (Needs Improvement): The project is difficult to follow. There’s little to no documentation or explanation. Perhaps the code is there, but the why behind the steps is not explained. Visualizations, if any, are poorly labeled or absent. There’s no clear introduction or conclusion. Essentially, only someone with the candidate’s exact knowledge could decipher the project. This raises concerns about how the person would communicate on a team or to stakeholders.
Level 2 (Good): The project is understandable with some effort. The candidate provides a decent structure (e.g., sections in a notebook, some comments or markdown explaining each part). They include a couple of key plots or tables and attempt to summarize findings. However, the narrative might not be as tight or engaging as it could be. Perhaps the introduction or conclusions are brief, or the visuals could be clearer. It’s adequate, but it might not fully grab a non-expert audience or highlight the most important insights upfront.
Level 3 (Excellent): The project is structured like a compelling story or case study, starting with a brief overview of the problem and approach, then explaining the methodology step-by-step in simple terms, and concluding with clear recommendations. Visuals are used effectively to support the findings, each accompanied by a descriptive title or caption. The writing is concise, with minimal jargon or explanations, making it accessible to both technical and business audiences. Attention to design details, such as bullet points or bold highlights, emphasizes key insights. This allows reviewers to quickly grasp the main points or explore detailed reasoning, demonstrating that the candidate can communicate effectively across functions and deliver meaningful insights beyond just modeling. Ideally, the project is engaging, inspires care for the outcome, and showcases strong storytelling skills.
Those are the five rubric categories:
Problem Framing,
Data Realism,
Evaluation Rigor,
Deployment Thinking,
Communication.
Great portfolios hit high marks in all five.
Next, let’s see how you can apply this rubric to improve your own portfolio, even if you’re short on time.
Quick Fix: How to Upgrade Your Portfolio in 2 Hours
You might be thinking, “This is great for planning new projects, but what about the projects I already have?” The good news is that you can improve an existing portfolio relatively quickly by addressing the rubric criteria. Here’s a step-by-step game plan (which you can literally do in an afternoon) to level up your portfolio using the rubric:
Pick Your Best Project (Focus Your Effort): If you have many projects, identify one or two that are most relevant to the roles you want or that best showcase your skills. It’s often better to have one polished, rubric-aligned case study than five mediocre ones. Hiring managers spend maybe 2-3 minutes on an initial portfolio glance, so you want your standout work front and center.
Add a Clear Problem Statement: Open your project README or the top section of your notebook. Write a one-paragraph intro that answers: What problem are you solving and why should anyone care? Be specific and use plain language. For example, “Goal: Reduce customer churn by predicting which users are likely to cancel, so the marketing team can intervene with retention offers.” This immediately frames the project in terms of business value and hooks the reader.
Provide Context on Data: Next, describe the dataset and why it’s appropriate (or if it has limitations). If it’s a well-known dataset, acknowledge that and perhaps note how you treated it: “We use the Telco Customer Churn dataset (IBM Sample) as a proxy for a subscription business’s customer data. In a real scenario, we’d gather recent customer activity and subscription details; the sample data serves as a stand-in, which I augmented by adding some noise to simulate real-world imperfections.” If you did any data cleaning or feature engineering, summarize that process. This shows Data Realism. Even a sentence like “Note: I had to impute missing values for tenure and handle class imbalance (only ~26% churned) by oversampling” demonstrates that you dealt with data issues (and gets you points on the rubric).
Insert a Baseline and Evaluation Highlights: Scan your results section. Have you indicated what performance you’d consider good, or what you’re comparing against? If not, add a baseline. This could be as simple as “For context, if we predict ‘no churn’ for everyone, we’d get ~74% accuracy (the non-churn rate). Our model achieves 85% accuracy, significantly improving over this baseline.” Also, ensure you mention the key metric(s) and why they make sense: “We optimize for recall, to catch as many churning customers as possible, because missing a churning customer is costlier than a false alarm in this context.” This addition shows Evaluation Rigor and aligns your project with real decision-making. It can be done with just a few lines of text or an extra table comparing metrics.
Discuss Deployment (Even Hypothetically): Add a short section titled “Deployment & Next Steps” at the end. Here, write a few sentences about how this model/analysis could be used in production or what you’d do next if this were a real company project. For example: “If this model were deployed in a company, I’d set it up as a daily batch job scoring each active user. Users predicted to churn would be fed into a CRM tool for the marketing team to target. I’d also monitor the model’s precision/recall over time – if performance drifts, I’d retrain with fresh data. For real deployment, we’d need to integrate with the data warehouse and ensure predictions happen within a week of a customer’s last activity.” You don’t have to actually deploy it, but showing you understand the path to production is immensely valuable. It shows that you think like someone who wants to drive results, not just build models.
Tighten the Narrative and Presentation: Now polish the communication. Ensure your notebook or report has a logical flow: Introduction → Data → Method → Results → Conclusion. Add or refine chart titles and axis labels to be more descriptive (e.g., “Churn Rate by Tenure Group” instead of “Figure1.png”). Consider adding an illustrative plot if you haven’t (for instance, a bar chart of feature importances or a sample of predictions vs. actual outcomes). Also, write a short conclusion that reiterates the key insight or performance: “Conclusion: The model can identify ~50% of churners with 80% precision, which could significantly reduce churn if retention offers are effective. The factors of contract length and monthly charges were the strongest churn predictors, aligning with business intuition.” This helps a skimmer get the point and shows you understand the results in context. Finally, if the project is on GitHub, make sure the README highlights these points and not just the technical setup.
Apply the Same Steps to Other Projects (if time permits): If you have another project that’s relevant (say one NLP project and one computer vision project to showcase range), repeat the above steps there. But remember, quality over quantity. It’s better to fully refurbish one project than half-fix three of them. You want at least one example that scores high on all rubric dimensions.
Within about 2 hours, using the steps above, you can transform a bland, academic project into a professional case study. The key is reframing your existing work to speak the language of hiring managers and to highlight business value.
🚀 Premium Content: Portfolio Rubric Toolkit (Downloadable)
The section below is for Premium subscribers and includes downloadable tools & examples to help you implement the ideas above. Upgrade to access the full toolkit. 🚀
Keep reading with a 7-day free trial
Subscribe to Non-Brand Data to keep reading this post and get 7 days of free access to the full post archives.