I don't think you can win the screening process by automating it away. People are ultimately what drives every aspect of your org.
Neglect the screening process by automating it away, and you'll end up with an org full of posers.
Couple of clarifications on how we use this: • It is not “modern looking = good." A repo with years of steady commits on an "ugly” legacy app can score very high if there is depth, complexity, and real usage. • We explicitly look for things like long term maintenance, non trivial diffs, real world integrations, and documentation, not just shiny landing pages. • The output is a signal for a human, not a gate that replaces one. It helps a recruiter who sees 200 links decide which 10 are worth a closer look.
In other words, it is meant to reduce noise, not replace judgment. If someone is quietly maintaining a critical FOSS project, they should stand out more, not less
mukulmunjal•2mo ago
So we built portfolio-level screening into InterviewFlowAI.
When a candidate submits a portfolio URL, we analyze the actual project: – structure and depth of work – tech stack used (and whether it looks “real”) – clarity of writing and documentation – attention to detail – common red flags (broken links, empty repos, template sites, shallow descriptions)
From that, the system generates: – a match score – strengths and gaps – a short summary the recruiter can skim in a few seconds
Early tests show that portfolio signals correlate far more with real-world ability than anything in a resume, especially for engineers and designers.
Curious if others here have seen the same shift: Are resumes becoming noise? Would love thoughts from people hiring at scale or candidates who prefer showcasing actual projects.