AI-native technical screening
See the engineer behind the AI-assisted code.
Replace your first technical screen with evidence of how candidates build, verify, and explain software with AI.
AI is part of the work. Engineering judgment is the signal.
Added a cross-tenant test that the initial AI-generated implementation was missing.
Test run · 18:42 · tenant-isolation.testIllustrative experience. Real work, made inspectable.
- Built around the way engineers work.
- Role-aligned codebases
- AI-enabled work
- Evidence-linked follow-up
The signal has changed
Working code. Unanswered questions.
A polished submission is a starting point. Your team still needs to know whether the person behind it can make sound engineering decisions.
Rethink the first technical screen- 01 /
Did they recognize what was wrong?
A passing happy path does not reveal whether a candidate noticed missing checks or failure modes.
- 02 /
Can they explain the decisions?
Look beyond the final answer to the reasoning behind the implementation, tests, and trade-offs.
- 03 /
What happens when the problem changes?
Use targeted follow-up to explore understanding, not just fluency with the original task.
From work to evidence
A technical screen. Not another coding score.
One connected experience, from the role you need to fill to the questions worth asking next.
- 01
Align
Define the engineering work and competencies that matter for the role.
- 02
Build
Candidates work in a realistic codebase with AI assistance available.
- 03
Explore
Follow up on the actual code, verification choices, and trade-offs.
- 04
Review
Give the hiring team inspectable findings and open questions.
The role shapes the work.
- Role
- Senior Backend
- Context
- Multi-tenant API
- Focus
- Security · Testing
Role-aligned, not generic
Engineering evidence brief
Sample candidate · Senior Backend Engineer
Recognized a missing isolation test. Added coverage.
Connected access control to the query boundary.
Retry and failure-recovery reasoning needs follow-up.
The evidence is the product
Every conclusion needs a way back to the work.
Code changes. Test results. Explanations. Open questions. Bring them together so your team can inspect the reasoning, not just accept a recommendation.
What was demonstrated
What supports it
What remains uncertain
Designed for the hiring team
Less time recovering missing signal. More time going deeper.
Keep your team’s judgment where it matters: the conversation that follows a credible technical screen.
A few good questions
Clear boundaries. Better decisions.
A technical screen informs a hiring decision. It should never pretend to be the whole decision.
Our evaluation principlesDoes this replace every technical interview?
No. The intended role is to replace or shorten the first technical screen. Your team retains later conversations about architecture, collaboration, context, and the final hiring decision. A pilot should establish whether a round can actually be removed.
Are candidates allowed to use AI?
Yes. AI assistance is part of the assessment, not something to hide. Candidates are told which tools they have before they start. The focus is how they reason, verify, and explain the resulting work.
Is the assessment specific to our role?
The job description is a starting point. Confirm the stack, seniority, real responsibilities, and critical competencies before choosing a supported work sample. Role relevance should not mean a different standard for every candidate.
What if the evidence is incomplete?
Incomplete evidence stays visible. A weak session, a technical failure, and an unresolved competency are not interchangeable. The hiring team reviews uncertainty rather than treating an automated label as a final decision.
A better first screen. A better next conversation.
See what engineering evidence could look like for your next hire.