How to Evaluate Developers When You're Not Technical

You don't need to learn to code. But you do need to know whether the people writing your code are doing it well. This is one of the hardest things for non-technical founders, and most of the advice out there — "look at their GitHub," "check their Stack Overflow score" — is useless if you can't evaluate what you're looking at.

Here's what actually works.

Forget the resume. Watch the behavior.

A developer's resume tells you where they've been. It tells you almost nothing about how they'll perform on your project. Here's what to look at instead.

Do they ask questions before they build?

Good developers ask uncomfortable questions. They push back on vague requirements. They ask "what happens when the user does X?" before writing code, not after.

If a developer says "sure, I can build that" to every request without asking for clarification, they're either not thinking deeply enough or they're afraid to challenge you. Both are problems.

What to watch for: In the first week of a project or sprint, good developers will have more questions than code. That's a good sign, not a bad one.

Do they estimate honestly?

Ask a developer how long something will take. If they always say "2-3 days" regardless of complexity, they're guessing. If they say "I need to look at the current code before I can estimate," that's a developer who actually thinks before committing.

Good developers give ranges and explain what could make it take longer. "I think 3-4 days, but if the payment API doesn't have the webhook support we need, it could take a week."

Red flag: A developer who has never missed an estimate is either padding everything by 3x or working on tasks too easy for their level.

Do things break after they ship?

Not everything should work perfectly on the first try. But if every feature a developer ships comes back with 3-4 bugs within a week, there's a quality problem.

What to track: Keep a simple log of bugs per feature, per developer. You don't need to understand the bugs technically. You just need to see the pattern. One developer's features work reliably. Another's consistently break. That pattern tells you everything.

Can they explain things in plain language?

Ask a developer to explain what they're building and why. If they can explain it in terms you understand — "I'm building the part that sends confirmation emails when someone places an order" — they understand the business context.

If they drown you in jargon — "I'm implementing an event-driven microservice that publishes to a message queue for asynchronous consumer processing" — they either can't simplify, or they're hiding behind complexity.

The test: Ask "Why are we doing it this way?" If the answer connects back to a business reason, that's a strong developer. If the answer is about technology preferences, that's a red flag.

Five proxy metrics you can track without reading code

1. Deployment frequency

How often does the team ship to production? Teams that deploy multiple times per week are generally healthier than teams that deploy monthly. Frequent deploys mean smaller changes, less risk, and faster feedback.

Ask your team: "How often do we deploy?" If nobody knows, that's a problem in itself.

2. Time from "done" to "live"

When a developer says a feature is done, how long does it take for users to see it? If it's hours or a day, the pipeline is healthy. If it's weeks, something is broken in the process — testing, review, deployment, or all three.

3. Bug recurrence

Do the same types of bugs keep coming back? A team that fixes the same class of problem three times isn't fixing it — they're patching symptoms. This doesn't require technical knowledge to spot. Just ask: "Didn't we fix this same issue last month?"

4. Documentation exists (and is current)

You don't need to read the documentation. You need to know it exists. Ask: "If a new developer joined tomorrow, could they deploy the product within a day?" If the answer is no, the team hasn't invested in documentation, and you have a knowledge concentration risk.

5. They say "no" sometimes

A team that agrees to everything is a team that's overcommitting. Good developers push back. They say "we can do A or B this sprint, but not both." They flag when a request conflicts with something already in progress.

If your developers never say no, they're either overworked and hiding it, or they're not thinking critically about what's possible.

Interview signals that actually matter

If you're hiring developers and you're not technical, ignore the algorithm quizzes. Here's what to evaluate:

Give them a real problem

Describe an actual challenge your product faces. Not a coding puzzle — a business problem. "We have an e-commerce platform and checkout sometimes fails under heavy load. How would you approach diagnosing that?"

A good developer will ask clarifying questions: What does "fails" mean? Timeouts? Errors? How heavy is the load? What database are you using? They'll think out loud and show their reasoning process.

A weak developer will jump to solutions immediately: "You should use Redis caching" or "switch to microservices." Solutions without questions mean they're pattern-matching, not thinking.

Ask about a failure

"Tell me about a project that went wrong." Every experienced developer has war stories. What you're evaluating isn't the failure — it's the self-awareness.

Did they own their part? Did they learn something specific? Or do they blame the project manager, the client, or the previous developer?

Check their communication, not their syntax

Have them write a technical decision in plain English. "We need to decide between building our own payment system or using Stripe. Write me a one-page recommendation."

You can evaluate this even without technical depth. Is it clear? Is it structured? Does it consider trade-offs? Does it make a recommendation with reasoning? This mirrors the actual communication you'll need from them on the job.

Red flags that should worry you

• "Trust me, it's fine." If a developer can't or won't explain their decisions, you're building a black box. You will pay for this later.
• Everything is "almost done." A feature that's been 90% complete for two weeks is probably 50% complete. The last 10% often takes as long as the first 90%.
• They resist code reviews. Developers who don't want others looking at their code are either insecure about quality or hiding a mess. Neither is acceptable.
• Technology chasing. If your developer wants to rewrite the authentication system using a new framework they're "excited about," that's them prioritizing their learning over your business. New technology should solve a problem, not create an experiment.
• No tests. Ask: "Do we have automated tests?" If the answer is no, or a long pause, your product is held together by manual effort and hope.

Green flags that should reassure you

• They proactively flag risks. "I noticed the database is growing faster than expected. We should plan for this before it becomes urgent." Developers who raise problems early save you money.
• They write things down. Decisions, architecture, deployment steps. A developer who documents is thinking about the team, not just themselves.
• They simplify. When given a complex requirement, they find the simpler version that delivers 80% of the value. This is the hardest skill in engineering and the most valuable.
• They care about the user, not just the code. "This will technically work, but the user experience is confusing. Can we simplify the flow?" This is a developer who thinks like a product person.
• They admit what they don't know. "I haven't worked with this payment provider before. Let me research it and come back with a plan." Honesty about gaps is a sign of confidence, not weakness.

The shortcut most founders miss

The single most effective way to evaluate developers when you're not technical: hire a technical advisor for a day to review the team and codebase.

A one-day technical assessment typically costs $1,500-$3,000 and gives you:

• An honest evaluation of code quality
• Assessment of each developer's strengths and gaps
• Identification of technical risks
• Specific recommendations for improvement

This isn't a replacement for the behavioral signals above. It's a complement. The advisor sees the technical truth. You see the behavioral patterns. Together, you have the full picture.

---

Not sure whether your development team is on the right track? A quick conversation can help you figure out what to look for — and whether you need a deeper assessment.