Ruzora

Full vetting service · monthly

Your engineers stoprunning interviews.

We become the technical stage of your hiring process. Every candidate who reaches it gets the same coding challenge, the same structured interview and the same scorecard, inside a day. Your senior people see four names instead of forty.

Talk to RobertoSee the output on one candidate

Priced against your monthly volume. Start with a free check to see the report.

The cost you are actually paying

Not the recruiter fee. The engineering hours.

A technical screen costs a senior engineer an hour to run, twenty minutes to write up, and the rest of the afternoon to get back into the work they left. Twelve screens a month is most of a person.

The screens are also inconsistent. Two engineers asking their own favourite questions produce two scales, so the shortlist that reaches you is not actually ranked. Everybody knows this and almost nobody fixes it, because fixing it means writing a rubric and holding people to it.

Outsourced technical interviewing exists as a category for exactly this reason and prices between $200 and $450 per interview. We do the same job, we publish the rubric, and we are the only ones who can also tell you how your candidates compare to a bench of engineers assessed on that identical scale.

How it runs

You keep your process. We take one stage of it.

  1. You send candidates

    Forward them, or point your ATS at us. Nothing about your sourcing, your job posts or your final round changes.

  2. Same assessment, every time

    Coding challenge in a sandbox, then a structured interview scored on four criteria. The same one our own engineers take.

  3. Scorecard inside a day

    Scores, the code they wrote, the transcript, and the questions worth asking in your final round.

  4. You interview the shortlist

    Your engineers meet the people who cleared the bar, and spend the hour on fit and depth rather than on finding out whether someone can code.

What makes this different from the alternatives

A benchmark, not just a number

Every scorecard sits against engineers we have assessed on the same rubric. A score with nothing to compare it to is not information.

Turnaround in a day

The reason good candidates disappear is not your bar, it is your latency. A day from submission to scorecard keeps them in play.

Nobody schedules anything

The assessment is a link. No calendar tetris between your engineers, our engineers and a candidate in another timezone.

Month to month

Hiring is lumpy. Scale the volume up for a push and down when the roles close. No annual commitment.

The rubric is published

Your candidates can read the bar before they take it, and so can you. It is the same one on our vetting page.

We do not recruit them

Candidates you send us are excluded from our bench and from every client search, by a filter in the query rather than a promise.

The obvious question

You are a staffing firm. Why would we let you interview our candidates?

Fair. Two things make it safe. The first is structural: everyone you send us is flagged in our database as yours, which excludes them from our bench, our shortlists and every search a client runs. That is a filter in the query, not a line in a contract.

The second is that the report never says hire or do not hire. You get scores, the code, the transcript and the rubric. We are not neutral about our own bench and we are not going to pretend to be, so we give you the evidence and stay out of the decision.

If a role turns out to have no viable candidate, we will tell you that too. What you do next is your call, and it is a perfectly good outcome for us if the answer is that you hire someone we assessed and never speak to us again.

See the report before you commit to anything

Run a free check on one candidate. If the output is not obviously more useful than what your process produces today, there is nothing to talk about.

Check a candidate freeTalk to Roberto