Positions we can defend about technical hiring: why assessments should execute code rather than read it, why a pass mark should never send a rejection, and where hiring data gets lost between systems.
A model asked whether code looks correct will say yes to code that does not compile. We run submissions against test cases in a sandbox and score what passes, because plausible and working are different properties.
Read it →Our assessments auto-advance candidates who clear the bar, and do nothing at all to those who do not. Automating the rejection was the one step we refused to build.
Read it →Recruiting software stops holding data at the offer letter. HR software starts at the start date. The most useful question in hiring sits in the gap.
Read it →There is no API to push listings to Google. It crawls your careers page, and it rejects postings for mistakes it never reports — remote roles with a street address being the most common.
Read it →These are positions, not neutral summaries. If you think one of them is wrong we would rather hear it.