This includes:

1. Open source contributions to high-profile / major repositories (with code-review in the open with core maintainers).

2. Side projects that are production-grade with customers and recurring revenue.

3. Given presentations at conferences.

At least 2 out of 3 of those. Years of experience is an additional plus.

But those still using keyword matching, ATS scores, leetcode don't have a clue on how to hire or who to hire as all of that can be faked, gamed and cheated by LLMs in 2026.

Instead of hiring builders, they continue to optimize for people studying for interviews and at the end of the day, I only care if you know how to make money and I prefer the former; builders over those who just study for the interview.

I'm only impressed by side projects if they had users and/or MRR - something serious that proves you worked on it long enough to have something to show for your efforts

At the same time I wouldn't skip a candidate for not having a portfolio - a full time job is enough

Not sure where this assumption is coming from. Most recruiters are looking for consistent work experience with reputable companies. Sure portfolios help but it's not even remotely on the same spectrum.

>I dont know how people are coming up with such juicy and vanity metrics but mostly are noise.

It's really not noise at all. If you actually use these ATS platforms from the hiring side, you'll see first hand how they've all doubled down on AI filtering. Candidates are directly experiencing increased difficulty in getting past the initial screening stages.

These traits show me someone is worth investing in, not just able to do a job. You'd be surprised how rare the combination is too.