Compare · why not what you already run

You already have a technical screen. It grades the artifact.

Every incumbent has shipped AI features in the last two years, and none of it changed what they measure. They score the code that came out. An agent writes that code in minutes now — so a green test suite tells you almost nothing about the engineer who submitted it.

At a glance

The artifact, versus the work behind it.

Comparison of traditional technical assessment platforms and Promptster across five dimensions.
DimensionThe screen you run todayPromptster
What it gradesThe final diff — did the tests go green.The process — how they scoped, steered, and verified the work.
Assumes the candidate works aloneYes — AI use is a violation to be detected.No — AI use is the job, and orchestration is the signal.
Survives a prompt-proxy candidateNo — correct output looks identical either way.Yes — the transcript shows who was driving.
Reconstructs the sessionNo — a score and maybe a keystroke playback.Yes — prompts, tool calls, diffs, and decisions on one timeline.
Candidate experienceLocked-down browser IDE, proctoring, webcam.Their own editor and agent. No proctoring, explicit consent.
On the record · signed · replayable

Read the process,
not just the commit.

Twelve founding teams will ship this with us. A technical screen that can't tell paste from craft isn't neutral. It's a ~$200K coin-flip you won't catch for months. If you hire 5+ engineers a year, we should talk.

Founding ratelocked through 20281 of 12 claimed