01 / Build
Give them work that runs.
Role-relevant tasks execute against real checks. Code, test output, and available replay context stay connected instead of collapsing into one opaque number.
PASS 12 checks REVIEW 2 edge cases
Technical hiring after AI
Can they tell when AI is wrong?
DevEval combines executable work, AI Critique, and evidence-backed verification in one role-specific screen. See what passed, what the candidate challenged, and what deserves live follow-up.
Interactive demo · 20 seconds
Should this AI patch ship?
ai-patch/cache.jsAI generated
1async function getUser(id) {
2 const cached = cache.get(id)
3 if (cached) return cached
4
5 const user = await db.users.find(id)
6 cache.set(id, user)
7 return user
8}
1const cached = cache.get(id)
2if (cached) return cached
3⋮
4cache.set(id, user)
5return user
Your decision
Read the patch, then make the call your team would need. Every test passes either way.
Live demoMake the call. No signup needed.Try the full task
The hiring problem changed
The final answer is the least interesting part.
Polished code is cheaper than ever. The scarce skill is justified confidence: knowing what to trust, where to look closer, and how to prove the work is ready.
Read the measurement methodThe old screen asks
Did they get the expected answer fast enough?
The useful screen asks
- 01 What did they challenge?
- 02 What did they leave alone?
- 03 How did they prove it?
What DevEval measures
Build. Challenge. Verify.
Not three abstract personality traits. Three observable actions tied to the work, preserved in one reviewable record.
02 / Challenge
Make confidence cost something.
In AI Critique, candidates choose Trust or Challenge. Their recorded decision shows which risks they would block a merge over and what they accept as correct.
Candidate challenge
“The cache has no invalidation path. A correct-looking response can still be stale.”
03 / Verify
Ground the call in reviewable evidence.
Executable checks and recorded decisions show whether the candidate caught real problems and avoided false alarms. Missed or uncertain calls can become focused live follow-up.
Human
review
review
One coherent trail
Stop restarting the interview from zero.
The assessment, evidence packet, live validation, and human decision stay connected. Interviewers arrive with a precise question instead of another generic prompt.
01
Configure the screen
Choose role-relevant executable work and the evidence your team needs.
02
Candidate does the work
AI can be allowed. Decisions, reasoning, and verification stay attached to the task.
03
Review one record
Inspect results, review outcomes, notes, and available replay context.
04
Validate what matters
Use focused follow-up prompts, then let a person make and record the decision.
Focused live follow-up
Probe the uncertainty, not the résumé.
“You trusted the cache read but challenged the write. What evidence would change your decision?”
Candidate experience
The process should give something back.
After a reviewer approves it and the same interview has a recorded decision, teams can release a private Candidate Growth Report with evidence-backed strengths and useful next steps.
Candidate sees
Evidence-backed strengths, growth areas, and a closing note
Company keeps private
Scores, rank, hiring outcome, reviewer notes, and integrity allegations
Private candidate report
Your DevEval Growth Report
Demonstrated strength
You reproduced the failure before changing the implementation.
Growth focus
Explain the cache invalidation strategy before accepting the patch.
A useful next rep
Take one AI-generated data layer and write the test that would expose a stale-read failure.
Hiring outcome is never included in this report.
Illustrative candidate-visible preview
The trust boundary
High signal without surveillance theater.
Keep the review anchored to work evidence. Missing signal stays missing, integrity events prompt review, and humans own the decision.
Review trust and securityEvidence reviewed
- Code and executable test results
- AI Critique decisions and reasoning
- Available replay and task context
- Integrity events as review prompts
Never inferred
- Face, voice, or emotion scoring
- Personality inference
- Automatic cheating verdicts
- Automatic hiring decisions
An integrity event can justify a closer look. It should not be treated as proof of misconduct or a standalone rejection reason.
Human decision requiredProof before procurement
Evaluate the product, not the pitch.
Try the candidate interaction, inspect the report your team receives, then read the trust boundary. The buying path should reduce uncertainty, not manufacture urgency.
deveval.com / assessment review
Real recruiter review UI, shown with demo candidate data.Open the sample evaluation
Take the task
Use the shipped Trust or Challenge interaction.
Inspect the report
Follow the evidence from task to follow-up.
Read the method
See what is measured and what is not.
Starter
$69/ month
Prove the workflow on one focused hiring need with candidates.
- 10 candidate sessions each month
- One launch-ready work template
- Evidence packet and candidate-safe shareback
- Up to 5 team members
Buyer questions
Ask the hard questions.
A credible hiring product should be specific about fit, limits, and who remains accountable.
Can candidates use AI during a DevEval assessment?
Yes, when the screen is configured for AI use. The useful signal is what happens after generation: what the candidate trusts, what they challenge, how they verify, and whether they can explain the decision.
Does DevEval make an automatic hiring decision?
No. DevEval organizes work evidence, scoring context, reviewer notes, and follow-up prompts. Your hiring team remains responsible for advancing, rejecting, and communicating with candidates.
Why use bounded tasks instead of our entire repository?
Repository work can add depth for finalists. Earlier in the funnel, bounded tasks with known evaluation criteria are easier to compare and require less company context before a candidate can demonstrate judgment.
What does the hiring team actually receive?
A reviewable record containing the available task results, candidate decisions and reasoning, review outcomes, reviewer notes, and focused follow-up prompts. Replay and integrations depend on the selected workflow and plan.
Is Starter enough to evaluate DevEval for one hiring need?
Starter is designed for exactly that: one focused hiring need, 10 candidate sessions each month, one launch-ready work template, evidence packets, and candidate-safe shareback.
Your next open role
Find the engineer who knows what should ship.
Bring one role. We will map the screen, the evidence, and the live follow-up your team actually needs.