Not at all. Scrum is a fine process when done right. And I'd probably rather deal with a half-assed implementation of Scrum, than deal with using somebody's home-baked, "cowboy coding with no controls at all", "inmates are running the asylum" process.
Now if an ad mentions SAFE (Scaled Agile Framework) then I'd say run screaming for the hills as fast as your feet can carry you. SAFE is the biggest clusterfuck / abomination I've ever had the misfortune to stumble across in my life. It's like the mutant child of the worst parts of Scrum, the worst parts of Waterfall, some syphilitic sewage sucked out of the Potomac, parts from a 1973 AMC Pacer, some rotting fish-heads, and a barrel full of shards of broken glass and old rusty nails.
Yes, but absence of red flags won't really save you from having cargo-culted fake agile shoved down your throat later. I would pay more attention to culture than specific practices.
Not necessarily, but if you have time I'd ask about their specific implementation of Scrum. I've now worked at 2 companies where the director will take all of the "reporting" aspects of Scrum and get rid of all of the "protect the developers and their time" aspects. It makes for a very demoralizing workplace.
Now if an ad mentions SAFE (Scaled Agile Framework) then I'd say run screaming for the hills as fast as your feet can carry you. SAFE is the biggest clusterfuck / abomination I've ever had the misfortune to stumble across in my life. It's like the mutant child of the worst parts of Scrum, the worst parts of Waterfall, some syphilitic sewage sucked out of the Potomac, parts from a 1973 AMC Pacer, some rotting fish-heads, and a barrel full of shards of broken glass and old rusty nails.