shortlstEvery applicant interviewed.
Only the best reach you.
Jane, your AI interviewer, screens every candidate the moment they apply — and hands you a ranked, scored shortlist the same day.
From job post to shortlist in three steps
No scheduling, no phone tag. Jane handles the entire first round.
Post your job
Paste the description, pick what to screen for. Your application link is live immediately.
2 minutesJane interviews every applicant
Candidates take a structured voice interview on their phone, any time — the moment they apply.
Instant, 24/7Review your ranked shortlist
Scores, evidence, fraud flags, and full transcripts. You only meet the candidates worth your time.
Same dayYou're drowning in CVs, not conversations.
Recruiters spend hours reading resumes that tell you almost nothing. Most candidates never get screened at all — you're making decisions on whoever applied first.
Shortlst fix → Jane interviews every applicant the moment they apply. You get a ranked shortlist with scores and summaries — hours, not weeks.
Every recruiter interviews differently. Results are inconsistent.
One recruiter asks tough follow-ups. Another chats about hobbies for 20 minutes. The shortlist you get depends more on who ran the interview than who the candidate actually is.
Shortlst fix → Same structured questions, same rubric, every time. Objective scores you can actually compare across hundreds of candidates.
Great candidates are off the market before you call them back.
The best candidates have options. A 2-week screening process means your top choices are already onboarding somewhere else by the time you schedule a phone screen.
Shortlst fix → Candidates interview the same day they apply — any time, on their phone. Your shortlist is ready before your next meeting.
Every interview. One deep report.
Not just a number — structured reasoning behind every score, plus automatic detection of AI-assisted responses.
Priya Sharma
Senior Software Engineer · 12 Jun 2025
Interview
/10
CV Match
/10
Summary
Priya demonstrated strong technical depth and genuine hands-on experience with distributed systems. She caught a deliberately planted race condition unprompted and reasoned through consistency trade-offs with clarity. Response patterns shifted around the 14-minute mark — later answers were unusually polished, triggering the AI-assistance flag.
Parameter Breakdown
Walked through distributed systems design unprompted, correctly identified the consistency vs. availability trade-off, and caught a deliberately planted race condition in the architecture exercise.
Decomposed problems systematically before writing code. Considered edge cases and failure modes — slightly over-engineered the final solution but reasoning was sound.
Answers were well-structured and easy to follow. Asked good clarifying questions. Occasionally verbose when a shorter answer would have sufficed.
Cited two unprompted examples of identifying and driving technical debt fixes. Showed clear accountability for a past production incident.
Collaborative examples were present but the narrative centred on personal contributions rather than team outcomes. Worth probing further in a panel interview.
Strengths
- ✓Caught a planted race condition in the architecture exercise — a strong signal of real production experience.
- ✓Led a zero-downtime migration for a 50M-row table; demonstrated solid production instincts.
- ✓Sharp clarifying questions before every problem — shows structured, disciplined thinking.
Areas to Improve
- ↑Tends to over-engineer — may need calibrating in a fast-shipping, early-stage environment.
- ↑Limited exposure to ambiguous, open-ended product decisions; mostly worked in well-scoped technical roles.
⚠ Fraud Detected
Medium confidenceResponse patterns suggest possible AI-assistance. Conversational answers in the first half were natural; technical responses after the 14-minute mark shifted to an unusually polished, encyclopaedic register inconsistent with live speech.
- •Clipboard paste detected 2× during the systems design question
- •Response latency for complex questions atypically short (avg 1.2s vs 4–8s baseline)
- •Vocabulary and syntax register shifted mid-interview — inconsistent with natural speech patterns
Scored parameters with evidence
Every dimension scored 1–10 with direct quotes from the interview — not just a number, but the reasoning behind it.
AI malpractice detection
Automatically flags clipboard paste, tab switches, AI-coached response patterns, and latency anomalies — on every single interview, every time.
Ask Jane anything
Post-interview, ask follow-up questions — red flags, culture fit, or how this candidate compares to others in your pipeline.
Questions recruiters ask us
Won't an AI interview put candidates off?+
Candidates interview on their own schedule, on their phone, with no scheduling back-and-forth — most prefer it to waiting two weeks for a phone screen. Take the 5-minute demo to feel it from their side.
How accurate is the scoring?+
Every score comes with the evidence behind it — direct quotes and reasoning, not a black-box number. You always see the full transcript and can ask Jane follow-up questions.
What if a candidate cheats with ChatGPT?+
Every interview is screened for AI assistance: clipboard pastes, tab switches, response-latency anomalies, and register shifts are flagged automatically in the report.
What does it cost?+
Posting your first job is free — no credit card. You pay only when you scale up interviews.
Be the candidate for 5 minutes.
Take the same live voice interview your applicants get — then imagine every applicant screened this way.
Or just post your first job free, no credit card needed.