Engineering vetting
How we vet engineers before you meet them
We are not a resume marketplace. Every profile you see passed seven internal stages. Most applicants never make it past the first two.
Why this exists
Vetting is the product
Companies hire us to scale without blowing the budget. That only works if every hour you buy is useful. Cheap talent that needs constant babysitting costs more than strong talent that ships.
Our job is not to forward resumes. It is to filter, prepare, and stay accountable after placement. The seven-stage process is how we earn the right to say someone is ready for your team.
Acceptance rate
of applicants clear all seven stages
Every number reflects real candidates screened since 2024, not marketing copy.
The seven stages
What happens before you see a profile
Same rigor as our how-it-works timeline: one stage at a time, no shortcuts. This is the gate between applicants and your shortlist.
CV check
Every application starts with a careful read, not a keyword filter. We compare experience, stack, seniority, and career history against the role, and we look at what the candidate actually shipped, not the list of tools on the page. We check that the story holds together: titles that match responsibilities, tenure that makes sense, and work that fits the level they claim. Most applicants stop here, before anyone spends time in an interview.
What we measure
- ·Real experience in the stack the role needs
- ·Seniority that matches the scope of past work
- ·A career history that holds together
Common rejection signals
- ·Stack or seniority that does not match the role
- ·Vague descriptions with no concrete work or outcomes
- ·Dates, titles, or responsibilities that do not add up
Behavioral interview
Technical skill without communication breaks remote teams. This is a structured conversation, not small talk. We ask for specific examples: disagreements in code review, missed deadlines, unclear specs, friction with product. We listen for how they explain tradeoffs, how they receive feedback, and whether they default to blame or ownership. English is evaluated in a professional context, not grammar perfection.
What we measure
- ·Clarity and pace in English
- ·How they handle conflict and ambiguity
- ·Ownership versus excuses
Common rejection signals
- ·Vague stories with no personal responsibility
- ·Difficulty following multi-part questions
- ·Signals that they avoid hard feedback conversations
Technical interview 1
A senior engineer from our side runs a live session on the core stack for the role. Expect real problems, not textbook definitions. We cover fundamentals, problem solving, and hands-on work: reading and writing code, debugging, and explaining each decision out loud. For some roles we emphasize data modeling, for others security, frontend performance, or infrastructure. Role pages describe the role-specific version of this stage.
What we measure
- ·Depth in the stack you actually use
- ·How they break down an unfamiliar problem
- ·Whether they can explain their thinking while they work
Common rejection signals
- ·Surface-level answers that fall apart on follow-ups
- ·Inability to read unfamiliar code carefully
- ·Guessing instead of reasoning through the problem
Technical interview 2
Candidates who clear the first round meet a second interviewer for a deeper session. We move from code to design: how they would structure a system, where it breaks under load, and what they would trade off to ship on time. We include a code review exercise, because reviewing other people's work is a large part of the job on a real team. The bar is matched to the seniority you are hiring for, so a senior candidate is expected to lead the conversation, not follow it.
What we measure
- ·System design and architecture judgment
- ·How they weigh tradeoffs, risk, and cost
- ·Code review quality and the tone of their feedback
Common rejection signals
- ·Designs that ignore scale, failure, or maintenance
- ·No clear reasoning behind a tradeoff
- ·Seniority claims the conversation does not support
Take-home assessment
Interviews show how someone thinks on the spot. The take-home shows how they work on their own. The assignment mirrors real work for the role, not a puzzle. We review it the way a careful teammate would: structure, readability, tests, documentation, and the tradeoffs they chose. Then the candidate walks us through their decisions and what they would change with more time.
What we measure
- ·Code quality, structure, and readability
- ·Testing and documentation habits
- ·How clearly they explain and defend their decisions
Common rejection signals
- ·Work that only covers the happy path
- ·No tests or documentation where they were clearly needed
- ·Inability to explain the choices in their own submission
Reference check
References are where resumes meet reality. We require at least two people who worked with the candidate in a real professional context. We ask direct questions: reliability, quality of work, how they handle review, and how they behave when a release goes wrong. Personal friends and family do not count.
What we measure
- ·Corroboration of strengths we already saw in interviews
- ·Patterns across two independent references
- ·Honest weaknesses we can coach or plan around
Common rejection signals
- ·References who barely worked with them
- ·Consistent negative patterns across references
- ·Refusal to provide professional references
Background check
We verify what matters for trust: employment history, education, and identity. Candidates provide written consent. In Brazil, checks are handled in line with LGPD. If a role touches sensitive data, we add the checks that match the risk. This stage is not performative paperwork. It is how we reduce surprises after someone is already inside your tools and channels.
What we measure
- ·Consistency between resume, references, and interview signals
- ·Serious flags in employment or credentials
- ·Fit for the sensitivity of your environment
Common rejection signals
- ·Material misrepresentation
- ·Unexplained gaps that do not hold up to verification
- ·Missing consent or refusal of reasonable verification
Role pages spell out how the first technical interview changes by stack. The other six stages follow the same standard for every engineer.
Browse rolesCompared with typical staffing
What most agencies skip
Many firms stop at a resume screen and one call. We treat behavioral depth, two technical rounds, a take-home, references, and verification as non-negotiable.
CV reviewed against the role by a person, not a keyword filter
Behavioral interview with structured scoring
Live technical session with a senior engineer
Second technical round on design, tradeoffs, and code review
Take-home assessment reviewed in depth
Two professional references minimum
Background verification with documented consent
Optional client technical round after our screening
By the numbers
The bar is high on purpose. Top 5% of applicants get through.
5%
Applicant acceptance rate
7
Screening stages per candidate
3 days*
Typical time to first shortlist
97%
Client satisfaction
* For common roles like full-stack. Other roles typically take 7 to 10 days.
FAQ
Vetting questions
Straight answers about how we screen engineers.
Next step
See who passes this bar for your stack
Tell us what you need. We will send a shortlist of engineers who already cleared all seven stages.