Resumes and CVs have a fundamental problem: anyone can write anything. As someone who's been job searching, I've wondered if there's a better way to separate genuine experience from creative writing, I am an engineer at the end of the day not a creative author.
I've been thinking about applying something similar to X's Community Notes model to skill verification. The idea: engineers could "fact check" claims on each other's CVs - not as formal references, but as a crowd-sourced verification layer, where you get a check-mark on your skill like X check mark. If someone claims they're an expert in Kubernetes, other engineers who've worked with them (or reviewed their OSS contributions) could validate or challenge that. Also companies have repetitive interviews, why can't I simply do one interview and be "interviewed" fully for all other companies?
I put together a rough prototype to illustrate the concept: https://skillverdict.com/
Some questions I'm trying to work through(ask more please):
How useful will this be for engineers? Would this create its own set of problems? (gaming the system, bias, grudges) Could it scale beyond personal networks? Would companies even trust community-sourced verification?
Curious what you guys think about the mechanism itself, not the prototype. Would something like this reduce friction in hiring, or just add another layer of noise?
unforbiddenYet•1h ago
I like your idea of verifiable skills but I don’t think the proposal is solid. We need a trusted third-party as a validator so everyone is happy. Otherwise, we bring bias and corruption into this.
The problem is currently solved by professional certification — yes it could be gamed but it provides an official confirmation from a reputable source rather than someone’s word that you’re good.
Please keep iterating! We need better tools!