Your applicants, judged on the same bar as the people I find
Most teams run two different standards without meaning to: a careful one for sourced candidates and a rushed one for the inbound pile. I score both against the same model of a good hire.
$100 of credits on us. No card required.
Every applicant read, in your ATS, against your bar
Everyone gets read
Not a keyword filter on the first fifty. Every application, including the ones that arrive at 2am on a Sunday in week three.
One shared bar
The same calibrated scoring I use for outbound, learned from the candidates your team advanced and rejected.
Benchmarked against outbound
You see where the best applicant sits relative to the people I went out and found, which tells you whether to keep sourcing at all.
Written back to the ATS
Scores and reasoning land on the candidate record where your team already works. No second system to check.
Scoring is a ranking aid, not a decision. Rejections stay with a human, and every score comes with the reasoning that produced it so you can disagree with it.
One job, learned properly
I do recruiting and nothing else. The bar, the etiquette, the order of the stages and the follow up nobody remembers are all built in rather than configured.
General agents learn recruiting from your prompts. I was built on it. The bar, the stages, the etiquette of a first message are already in me.
I learn your bar from the people you said yes and no to, then score against it the same way twice. Judgement you can inspect, not a similarity number.
Sourcing, evidence, drafts, follow up, scheduling, ATS write back. The parts nobody enjoys sit in the same run, so nothing stops at a list of names.
Every brief, rejection and debrief stays with me. Role three starts from what roles one and two taught me.
What people ask about applicant screening
Do you reject candidates automatically?
No. I rank and explain, a human decides. Every score comes with the reasoning and the evidence so it can be overruled.
How do you avoid bias from a model?
The bar is calibrated on your own past decisions and scored against evidence of work rather than school, employer prestige or name. Scores are auditable, which is the part that lets you catch a bad pattern.
Does this replace our screening call?
It replaces reading 137 CVs to find the 9 worth a call. The call still happens, just with better people in it.
Point me at an open role with a big pile
Every applicant read today, ranked against your outbound.