8 ms·

Show HN: I was tired of wasting engineer time on screening calls so I built Niju

14 points by radug14 11mo ago

radug14 11mo ago
Hi everyone, I’m Radu. In my personal experience, screening software engineers has always put pressure on internal engineering teams. Over the years, I’ve tried different approaches to streamline the process, but nothing has really fixed the problem of investing engineering time into screening. At the start of the year I went through BetterStack’s recruitment process. Their first stage, an in-house built async screening test, was a revelation for me. I thought this was a fantastic alternative for an early stage in the recruitment pipeline. Back in February, while I was actively hiring at the startup I was working with, I prototyped a solution and trialed it - it was a success. Fast forward a few months and I’ve now been able to turn the early prototype into a product. Meet Niju. Niju replaces the traditional screening call with a 20-minute, asynchronous, recorded coding session. A candidate gets a link, shares their screen, and "thinks aloud" while solving a practical coding challenge (no abstract algorithms). After 20 minutes, Niju analyses the entire session: the code, the audio, and the thought process. It gives the hiring manager a concise report, transcripts, code playback and the raw footage with the important parts annotated. This means that, on average, a Niju interview takes 5 minutes to review. * Cheating: Yes, a candidate can use Google. That's the point. I want to see how they solve a problem, not what they've memorised. The screen recording shows their whole process. * AI: The AI does not produce a "pass/fail" decision. It just summarises the data to help a human make a better, faster, and more consistent decision. * Stack: As a solo builder, I'm keeping it simple: SvelteKit, DrizzleORM, BullMQ, Postgres, Redis, Azure OpenAI. The goal is to help busy engineering teams reclaim their time. You can try the first interview for free. I’ll be here for a while to answer questions and I'd be honored to get your feedback. Radu
- abtinf 11mo ago
  I hope your product sees some adoption. Use of such a system would be a high-signal indicator for companies to avoid.
  - radug14 11mo ago
    May I ask why? I would never approve the use of async interviews further down the pipeline, but for screening purposes (from a candidate POV) I personally don't have any problems. Keen to hear your point of view!
    - parliament32 11mo ago
      Because interviews are a two-way street. If you can't commit the time to interview and want to offload it to AI, why shouldn't I also have AI take the interview for me? Or you do you think my time is worth less than yours? This is pretty gross, honestly. I recommend some reflection.
      - radug14 11mo ago
        Your time is definitely not worth less than the company you are applying to. And I 100% agree interviews should not be offloaded to AI. This is a screening interview, and the AI component simply assists the hiring manager, it does not automate the outcome in any way.
        riku_iki 11mo ago
        But we don't know if hiring person spends quality time on looking at all these recordings and transcripts, or just do some superficial keyword matching thing or AI signal.
        vladg1994 11mo ago
        I agree with you on this one sure, but at the same time you wouldn't know if the hiring manager would be spending time looking over your CV if you send it. I don't see where's the fault of the app.
        deleted 11mo ago
        [deleted]
- radug14 11mo ago
  This is a super tough, but incredibly valuable thread. Thank you all for the raw feedback. I need to be clear: I 100% agree with the core sentiment here. As a candidate, the hiring process is often broken, dehumanising, and feels like a one-way street. Many of you are right when saying a tool like this could be abused. I'm not trying to automate the human part of hiring. I'm trying to fix the part that's already broken. The real-world alternative at most companies isn't a friendly 1-hour chat with a senior engineer for every single applicant, that just doesn’t scale. The alternative is: 1. A harsh, biased CV filter that rejects 95% of applicants in a couple of seconds. 2. A 4-hour take-home exercise that massively wastes your time and is genuinely pointless because anyone can vibe code it. 3. An algorithm test from a platform like HackerRank for which the majority of engineers have to prep many hours. I built Niju to be less painful than those. It's a 20-minute, practical, "think-aloud" test. The AI's only job is to summarise the data so a human can review it faster, making it more likely they'll widen the funnel and give more people a shot beyond just their CV. My goal isn't to replace engineers but to stop wasting their time on a broken process, so they can have better, human interviews with the top 20% of candidates. It's a massive challenge, and this thread, as well as most of the others, show the raw nerve I've hit.
  - UncleMeat 11mo ago
    > I'm trying to fix the part that's already broken. The broken part appears to be that somebody spends 20 minutes screening a candidate rather than 5 minutes reviewing an AI summary of the screen. Inefficient, maybe. Why does this actually get rid of the alternatives? You've reduced the active time to screen a candidate by 75%. But a CV filter reduces it by 95%. Why would your system involve less prep than HackerRank? It is still a test with a critical outcome. The idea that if only we didn't ask algorithmic questions that nobody would spend time rehearsing for interviews is ridiculous.
t_mann 11mo ago
Do you realize that your product will only lead to more time being wasted on the side of the applicants, who are already the weaker party? How do you justify that?
- radug14 11mo ago
  Hey! I think it's quite the opposite, and I'll explain why. Let me just apply one example. A few years ago I was screening candidates over a 30-minute live coding interview covering pretty day to day stuff. That required a 30 minute investment from the applicant in what is a high-stress situation for many. I can't tell you how many times they seemed very stressed simply because they had to code in a live interview setting knowing someone is actively watching what they are doing. Now compare that to a 20-minute screening interview where most of that pressure is gone. You can do it whenever you want to. That is my rationale behind it, thinking both as an applicant and as a hiring manager. Why do you think this leads to more wasted time?
  - t_mann 11mo ago
    How is "most of that pressure gone"? You're still being evaluated and have to code against a clock, with less time, less opportunities to ask questions and less immediate feedback that could get you back on track. Also, your 20 vs 30 minute calculation ignores that companies are incentivized to conduct more screening tests if it becomes practically free for them. But the number of positions stays the same. So if instead of 10 screening calls they do 16 tests for one position, that's already more time being wasted, even if the tests are 1/3 shorter. And realistically, the number will shoot up much more.
    - radug14 11mo ago
      The challenges are designed for an average engineer at the job opening level (junior, mid, senior) to solve in approximately 10 minutes. Furthermore, they are practical day-to-day tasks that should not put pressure just by nature of what's being asked. For your last point, a review takes on average 5 minutes for a hiring manager. And I think screening more is not inherently a problem. Imagine they turned down the dial on their CV filters and had more applicants do a technical screen - wouldn't that give more applicants an opportunity to shine? In most cases it unfortunately is a numbers game.
whatsakandr 11mo ago
The purpose of a screening is not to determine competence, it is to determine whether recruit and company want to work together, which cannot be automated.
- radug14 11mo ago
  I understand and agree, but this is a technical screening. Typically you would have someone from HR have an initial conversation with the applicant to align. This comes after, if it's a go from both parties. Furthermore, Niju does not automate the decision. AI is only used to create a transcript, a summary of the interview with, a list of important moments and a set of indicative scores on a number of criteria. The decision is always with the human.
  - gpm 11mo ago
    As a candidate I'm no more "done" evaluating the company after a first screening then the company is done evaluating me. As someone with the privilege to be able to reject job opportunities, it's all but certain running into a tool like this would result in me immediately doing so.
  - vorpalhex 11mo ago
    If you can't take time to screen me, I can't take time to be bothered with your company. Hiring is the most important part of your job.
doctor_radium 11mo ago
I'm more a syadmin type than a developer, but still get hit with online "testing" requests sometimes: a couple SQL tests for some support position, a couple psychological tests, etc. These are now a hard line for me. Why? Maybe I misunderstand...but my time is valuable, too. If HR or the hiring manager wants to reach out for a round 1 interview and then tell me a week later I'm one of your top candidates, and would I please take some online testing to continue the process, fine. But not the other way around.
- radug14 11mo ago
  Yes. Niju is not meant to be your first interaction with the company. You first speak to the hiring manager and only then you proceed to this stage.

14 points by radug14 11mo ago

Hi everyone, I’m Radu. In my personal experience, screening software engineers has always put pressure on internal engineering teams. Over the years, I’ve tried different approaches to streamline the process, but nothing has really fixed the problem of investing engineering time into screening. At the start of the year I went through BetterStack’s recruitment process. Their first stage, an in-house built async screening test, was a revelation for me. I thought this was a fantastic alternative for an early stage in the recruitment pipeline. Back in February, while I was actively hiring at the startup I was working with, I prototyped a solution and trialed it - it was a success. Fast forward a few months and I’ve now been able to turn the early prototype into a product. Meet Niju. Niju replaces the traditional screening call with a 20-minute, asynchronous, recorded coding session. A candidate gets a link, shares their screen, and "thinks aloud" while solving a practical coding challenge (no abstract algorithms). After 20 minutes, Niju analyses the entire session: the code, the audio, and the thought process. It gives the hiring manager a concise report, transcripts, code playback and the raw footage with the important parts annotated. This means that, on average, a Niju interview takes 5 minutes to review. * Cheating: Yes, a candidate can use Google. That's the point. I want to see how they solve a problem, not what they've memorised. The screen recording shows their whole process. * AI: The AI does not produce a "pass/fail" decision. It just summarises the data to help a human make a better, faster, and more consistent decision. * Stack: As a solo builder, I'm keeping it simple: SvelteKit, DrizzleORM, BullMQ, Postgres, Redis, Azure OpenAI. The goal is to help busy engineering teams reclaim their time. You can try the first interview for free. I’ll be here for a while to answer questions and I'd be honored to get your feedback. Radu

abtinf 11mo ago
I hope your product sees some adoption. Use of such a system would be a high-signal indicator for companies to avoid.
- radug14 11mo ago
  May I ask why? I would never approve the use of async interviews further down the pipeline, but for screening purposes (from a candidate POV) I personally don't have any problems. Keen to hear your point of view!
  - parliament32 11mo ago
    Because interviews are a two-way street. If you can't commit the time to interview and want to offload it to AI, why shouldn't I also have AI take the interview for me? Or you do you think my time is worth less than yours? This is pretty gross, honestly. I recommend some reflection.
    - radug14 11mo ago
      Your time is definitely not worth less than the company you are applying to. And I 100% agree interviews should not be offloaded to AI. This is a screening interview, and the AI component simply assists the hiring manager, it does not automate the outcome in any way.
      - riku_iki 11mo ago
        But we don't know if hiring person spends quality time on looking at all these recordings and transcripts, or just do some superficial keyword matching thing or AI signal.
        vladg1994 11mo ago
        I agree with you on this one sure, but at the same time you wouldn't know if the hiring manager would be spending time looking over your CV if you send it. I don't see where's the fault of the app.
        deleted 11mo ago
        [deleted]
radug14 11mo ago
This is a super tough, but incredibly valuable thread. Thank you all for the raw feedback. I need to be clear: I 100% agree with the core sentiment here. As a candidate, the hiring process is often broken, dehumanising, and feels like a one-way street. Many of you are right when saying a tool like this could be abused. I'm not trying to automate the human part of hiring. I'm trying to fix the part that's already broken. The real-world alternative at most companies isn't a friendly 1-hour chat with a senior engineer for every single applicant, that just doesn’t scale. The alternative is: 1. A harsh, biased CV filter that rejects 95% of applicants in a couple of seconds. 2. A 4-hour take-home exercise that massively wastes your time and is genuinely pointless because anyone can vibe code it. 3. An algorithm test from a platform like HackerRank for which the majority of engineers have to prep many hours. I built Niju to be less painful than those. It's a 20-minute, practical, "think-aloud" test. The AI's only job is to summarise the data so a human can review it faster, making it more likely they'll widen the funnel and give more people a shot beyond just their CV. My goal isn't to replace engineers but to stop wasting their time on a broken process, so they can have better, human interviews with the top 20% of candidates. It's a massive challenge, and this thread, as well as most of the others, show the raw nerve I've hit.
- UncleMeat 11mo ago
  > I'm trying to fix the part that's already broken. The broken part appears to be that somebody spends 20 minutes screening a candidate rather than 5 minutes reviewing an AI summary of the screen. Inefficient, maybe. Why does this actually get rid of the alternatives? You've reduced the active time to screen a candidate by 75%. But a CV filter reduces it by 95%. Why would your system involve less prep than HackerRank? It is still a test with a critical outcome. The idea that if only we didn't ask algorithmic questions that nobody would spend time rehearsing for interviews is ridiculous.

t_mann 11mo ago

Do you realize that your product will only lead to more time being wasted on the side of the applicants, who are already the weaker party? How do you justify that?

radug14 11mo ago
Hey! I think it's quite the opposite, and I'll explain why. Let me just apply one example. A few years ago I was screening candidates over a 30-minute live coding interview covering pretty day to day stuff. That required a 30 minute investment from the applicant in what is a high-stress situation for many. I can't tell you how many times they seemed very stressed simply because they had to code in a live interview setting knowing someone is actively watching what they are doing. Now compare that to a 20-minute screening interview where most of that pressure is gone. You can do it whenever you want to. That is my rationale behind it, thinking both as an applicant and as a hiring manager. Why do you think this leads to more wasted time?
- t_mann 11mo ago
  How is "most of that pressure gone"? You're still being evaluated and have to code against a clock, with less time, less opportunities to ask questions and less immediate feedback that could get you back on track. Also, your 20 vs 30 minute calculation ignores that companies are incentivized to conduct more screening tests if it becomes practically free for them. But the number of positions stays the same. So if instead of 10 screening calls they do 16 tests for one position, that's already more time being wasted, even if the tests are 1/3 shorter. And realistically, the number will shoot up much more.
  - radug14 11mo ago
    The challenges are designed for an average engineer at the job opening level (junior, mid, senior) to solve in approximately 10 minutes. Furthermore, they are practical day-to-day tasks that should not put pressure just by nature of what's being asked. For your last point, a review takes on average 5 minutes for a hiring manager. And I think screening more is not inherently a problem. Imagine they turned down the dial on their CV filters and had more applicants do a technical screen - wouldn't that give more applicants an opportunity to shine? In most cases it unfortunately is a numbers game.

whatsakandr 11mo ago

The purpose of a screening is not to determine competence, it is to determine whether recruit and company want to work together, which cannot be automated.

radug14 11mo ago
I understand and agree, but this is a technical screening. Typically you would have someone from HR have an initial conversation with the applicant to align. This comes after, if it's a go from both parties. Furthermore, Niju does not automate the decision. AI is only used to create a transcript, a summary of the interview with, a list of important moments and a set of indicative scores on a number of criteria. The decision is always with the human.
- gpm 11mo ago
  As a candidate I'm no more "done" evaluating the company after a first screening then the company is done evaluating me. As someone with the privilege to be able to reject job opportunities, it's all but certain running into a tool like this would result in me immediately doing so.
- vorpalhex 11mo ago
  If you can't take time to screen me, I can't take time to be bothered with your company. Hiring is the most important part of your job.

doctor_radium 11mo ago

I'm more a syadmin type than a developer, but still get hit with online "testing" requests sometimes: a couple SQL tests for some support position, a couple psychological tests, etc. These are now a hard line for me. Why? Maybe I misunderstand...but my time is valuable, too. If HR or the hiring manager wants to reach out for a round 1 interview and then tell me a week later I'm one of your top candidates, and would I please take some online testing to continue the process, fine. But not the other way around.

radug14 11mo ago
Yes. Niju is not meant to be your first interaction with the company. You first speak to the hiring manager and only then you proceed to this stage.