IT & Software Recruitment

An engineer who spent three years building an event driven order pipeline may never write the word Kafka on their CV, because at their company the internal system had a different name. A keyword search returns zero. A hiring manager reading the same CV would flag them in thirty seconds.

That gap is the single largest source of waste in technical recruitment, and it gets worse as you go senior, because senior engineers describe outcomes rather than tools. Our AI reads a role the way a hiring manager would and matches on demonstrated capability, then writes out why each candidate ranked where they did, including the gaps worth asking about in interview.

Most non-technical recruiters compensate for not understanding the work by matching keywords, which is exactly why hiring managers receive shortlists full of people whose CVs contain the right words and whose experience does not. We screen differently, and the method is simple enough that you can use it yourself in your own interviews.

The third question is the one worth stealing. Ask a candidate what problem their last project was solving and listen to whether they answer with a problem or with a stack. People who owned the work lead with the problem, because that is what they spent their time thinking about. People who were near the work lead with the tools, because that is what they can see from where they were standing.

None of this requires you to write code, and none of it can be faked by a well-written CV. It is also why our shortlists are short: most profiles do not survive question one.

That middle stage is the point. Most agencies go straight from reading a CV to sending it, which is exactly why clients end up interviewing people who read well on paper and fall apart in the room. Twenty of those eighty were interviewed before anyone was submitted, and ten did not make it through. The client never saw the ten, and never spent an hour finding out why.

A second search, a marketing manager for a SaaS startup. Twenty to thirty profiles screened, six shared, closed in twelve days with the candidate joining fifteen days later after notice. The first batch of four was rejected outright, and the reason mattered more than the rejection: the client wanted someone to own product marketing start to end, and the market kept supplying people who were good with a settled process. Excellent executors inside a machine somebody else had built.

The person who closed had run digital marketing and built strategy. He owned the process rather than ran it. That distinction is invisible on a CV, because every marketing profile lists the same channels and the same tools. It is the whole job at a startup, and it is why we send four at a time: the first four told us what the client actually meant, and the next two were shaped by that.