We noticed something odd while reviewing thousands of candidates: resumes were giving us an increasingly distorted picture of actual ability. People can list anything. Their real work is almost always sitting in a GitHub repo, personal site, Figma file, or some half-forgotten project link.

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.

So people who, for example, spend a lot of time maintaining a couple widely used legacy FOSS apps would lose to someone generating modern looking AI slop?

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.