Most interviewers don't come with a generic script. They read your CV and build their questions straight from it... your roles, your claims, the gaps between the lines. Which means the single best way to prepare isn't memorising a list of "common interview questions." It's working out which questions your CV invites... and which ones it can't back up.
Because a CV can look strong and still leave you exposed. Not because you're a weak candidate. Because a CV is a summary, and a summary leaves things out.
You usually find out where in the worst possible place. Mid-interview. Someone asks about a line on the page, and you realise the detail they want isn't actually there... so now you're improvising under pressure instead of answering something you'd already thought through.
That's the useful part. Questions drawn from a CV cluster into a few recurring types. If you know the types, you can find your own weak spots in advance.
Leadership and influence. Your CV says "led a team of six." Fine. But can it back up how? What you did when it went sideways, how you brought a reluctant person round, what you'd do differently. The one-line claim is on the page. The story behind it usually isn't... and that's exactly what gets probed.
Quantified impact. A lot of CVs describe what someone was responsible for without saying what changed because they were there. "Managed the migration" versus "cut processing time by a third." If the number isn't written down, you'll get asked for it live... and "I don't remember exactly" is a weak answer to give in the room.
Gaps and jumps in the timeline. A six-month break, a short stint, a move that looks odd from outside. If the CV doesn't account for it, an interviewer will. Silence on the page becomes a question across the table.
"Why you?" The most predictable question there is, and the one most CVs are quietly unprepared for... because a CV lists what you've done without ever making the case for why it adds up to this role. If you're pointing the same CV at a specific advert, it's worth checking it against that job description so you know exactly which of its requirements you can and can't speak to.
None of these mean your CV is bad. They mean it's a document, and documents stay quiet on things that were true but never got written down.
The honest move isn't to pad the CV with impressive-sounding lines. It's to find the real gaps... the questions your actual CV can't answer well... and decide, question by question, whether the missing detail genuinely existed and is worth adding.
Sometimes it did. The number was real, you just never wrote it down. Add it. Sometimes it didn't, and the honest answer is to prepare for the question rather than fake the paper.
You can do this by hand. Reread your CV line by line, and for each claim ask: if an interviewer pushed on this, could I answer... and is the evidence actually on the page? It's slow, and it's hard to be objective about your own CV, but it works.
Or you can have it done for you. That's what I built ChatBotCV to do. You upload your CV, and it runs the questions an interviewer is likely to ask straight against it... then shows you the ones it can't answer well from what's actually written. It won't invent detail to fill a gap. If the CV doesn't say it, it tells you the CV doesn't say it. That's the whole point... an honest read of where you're exposed, not a flattering one.
Takes about a minute. You end up with a short list of your own weak spots, in your own words, before anyone else gets to ask.