How We Read a Candidate
Most tools give you a resume summary. We give you a complete psychographic profile, built from 22 dimensions of behavioral insight, validated across 4 analytical tiers, and delivered in under 60 seconds.
Three data sources. One comprehensive picture.
We do not ask candidates to fill out questionnaires. We read what they have already written, their public professional narrative, and enrich it with optional technical portfolio data.
LinkedIn Profile
The primary signal. We read the static profile and the candidate's public activity, the things they have already chosen to put into the world.
GitHub Portfolio
Optional enrichment. We analyze public repositories for technical depth, consistency, collaboration patterns, and code quality signals.
Job Description
The context layer. We parse the role requirements to weight dimensions and compute a job-specific fit score rather than a generic score.
Optional inputs. Paste the candidate's resume to fill in sparse LinkedIn profiles (stored encrypted, used to augment the LinkedIn signal). Capture the candidate's email at analyze time so the rejection-email flow is one click later. Save interview Q&A pairs after a phone screen and an AI scorer returns a verdict, overall score, and per-question reasoning.
Four analytical tiers. Twenty-two dimensions.
Each tier is a specialized inference agent running on a domain-specific psychological framework. Tier 1 gates confidence for everything downstream. No single call tries to do everything.
Structural Analysis
The gatekeeper. Before any personality or behavioral inference happens, we establish the structural facts of the candidate's career. This tier runs first and controls confidence for everything downstream.
Detects recent job changes, gaps, field switches, or layoffs. If active transition is detected, all downstream confidence is capped at Medium.
0 = Stable, 10 = Major Transition
Measures average tenure, job-hopping frequency, and progression consistency. Short tenures without advancement are penalized.
0 = Unstable, 10 = Highly Stable
Tracks promotion speed, scope increases, and responsibility growth over time. Normalized by industry and role type.
0 = Stagnant, 10 = Rapid Advancement
Inferred from career choices: startup vs. big-co, established industry vs. emerging, steady progression vs. pivots.
0 = Risk-Averse, 10 = Risk-Seeking
How it works
{
"careerTransitionState": 1.2,
"tenureStability": 7.8,
"advancementVelocity": 6.5,
"riskAppetite": 4.2,
"transitionDetected": false,
"downstreamConfidence": "high"
}HEXACO Personality
The HEXACO-PI-R framework1 measures six major dimensions of personality. We infer all six factors from the candidate's written narrative, job descriptions, recommendations, and self-reported achievements. Independent meta-analytic research finds the HEXACO model explains roughly 60% more variance in counterproductive work behavior than the legacy Big Five (31.97% vs 19.05%)5.
sincerity, fairness, greed-avoidance, modesty
Low = manipulative, High = genuine
fearfulness, anxiety, dependence, sentimentality
Low = stoic, High = emotionally expressive
social self-esteem, social boldness, sociability, liveliness
Low = reserved, High = outgoing
forgivingness, gentleness, flexibility, patience
Low = critical, High = accommodating
organization, diligence, perfectionism, prudence
Low = spontaneous, High = disciplined
aesthetic appreciation, inquisitiveness, creativity, unconventionality
Low = traditional, High = experimental
How it works
Schwartz Values
Schwartz's theory of basic values2 identifies ten universal motivational dimensions organized in a circular structure. We infer the four value clusters most relevant to career outcomes: Self-Enhancement, Openness to Change, Self-Transcendence, and Conservation.
Achievement, Power, drive for personal success, status, and influence
Low = content, High = ambitious
Self-Direction, Stimulation, Hedonism, desire for novelty, autonomy, and creativity
Low = conventional, High = experimental
Universalism, Benevolence, concern for others, environment, and social justice
Low = self-focused, High = altruistic
Security, Conformity, Tradition, preference for stability, rules, and established ways
Low = rebellious, High = traditional
How it works
Behavioral & Vocational
The deepest tier. Eight specialized inference agents, each calibrated on a different psychological framework, analyze behavioral signals from the candidate's career narrative.
Resilience to change, learning velocity, pivot capability
Mentorship, documentation, teaching, community contribution
Connection depth, endorsements, recommendation sentiment
Holland vocational interests (Holland 1997, ref. 3): Realistic, Investigative, Artistic, Social, Enterprising, Conventional
Schein's 9 anchors: what truly drives career decisions
Autonomy, Competence, Relatedness, intrinsic motivation drivers
Cross-validation across 5 frameworks (Premium only)
Forward-looking career path forecast (Premium only)
How it works
Not a score. A complete picture.
Every analysis produces a structured Cognition Profile, a JSON document with 22 dimension scores, confidence levels, evidence citations, and a natural-language narrative. Here is what you get.
Dimension Scores
Every dimension is scored 0-10 with a confidence level (high / medium / low). Scores are calibrated against population norms, not arbitrary thresholds.
Radar Chart
A polar visualization of all scored dimensions on a single 0-10 scale. Instant pattern recognition, see the candidate's shape at a glance. Compare two candidates side-by-side with dual-overlay mode.
Natural Language Narrative
A generated paragraph that reads like a senior recruiter wrote it, summarizing strengths, risks, trajectory, and cultural fit in plain English. Every claim is backed by cited evidence from the source text.
Job Fit Score
A weighted composite score (0-100) computed against the specific job description. You control the weights: Execution, Collaboration, Adaptability, Integrity.
Interview Questions
AI-generated behavioral interview questions tailored to the candidate's profile and the role. Probe their weakest dimensions. Validate their strongest claims.
Trajectory Forecast
Premium tier only. A forward-looking projection of the candidate's likely career path based on velocity, values alignment, and historical patterns in similar profiles.
After the profile generates
Every analysis joins a persistent candidate library you can tag, filter, and re-score against new job descriptions in one pass. The downstream workflow is built into the same view:
Read them from LinkedIn. Then watch them work.
The Cognition Profile tells you who a candidate is. The Live Assessment shows you how they actually think. Send a token-invited link, generate a problem tailored to the role, and observe their full session in a browser-native coding environment. No scheduling. No installs. No screen-share theater.
What the candidate sees
What you receive
Nine evaluation dimensions
The session is graded by an AI rubric calibrated for the AI-assisted era of engineering. We do not penalize candidates for using the assistant, we score the quality of how they use it. Each dimension returns a rating (exceptional / strong / solid / mixed / weak), evidence, and a confidence level.
Evidence-based. Not guesswork.
Every dimension score is backed by direct evidence from the candidate's profile text. No score is invented. No inference is made from absence of evidence. Structured assessment of work-relevant traits has been shown to outperform unstructured interviews by more than 2x in predictive validity (r=.42 vs r=.19)4.
Confidence Levels
Not all dimensions can be scored with equal certainty. We report confidence honestly.
Evidence Arrays
Every score comes with 1-10 direct text citations from the candidate's profile. You can verify every claim against the source.
Career Transition Gate
Tier 1 detects if the candidate is in a career transition (recent layoff, gap, new field). When detected, confidence is downgraded across all dimensions because behavioral signals are less stable during transition periods.
Convergence Checks
Premium tier only. Five independent psychological frameworks are cross-validated: HEXACO, Schwartz Values, RIASEC, Career Anchors, and SDT. If they contradict, the profile is flagged for human review.
Your data. Their privacy. Protected.
We built ProvenATS with a privacy-first architecture. Raw candidate data never persists in plaintext. Every access is scoped. Every operation is auditable.
AES-256 Encryption
Sensitive fields (LinkedIn URLs, ATS credentials, API keys) are encrypted at the application layer before storage.
PII-Conscious Pipeline
Raw candidate text is processed in-memory during analysis and never persisted. Identifiers are HMAC-SHA256 hashes.
Row-Level Security
Every database table has a userId column. PostgreSQL RLS policies ensure users can only access their own data.
SOC 2 Ready
Infrastructure, access controls, and audit logging are designed to meet SOC 2 Type II requirements.
Right model. Right tier. Right cost.
We do not use one model for everything. Each tier uses the model best suited to its task, balancing reasoning depth, speed, and cost.
Claude Opus 4.7
Our deepest reasoning model. Used for structural analysis that gates all downstream confidence, and for premium-tier convergence checks that reconcile five psychological frameworks.
Claude Sonnet 4.6
The workhorse. Fast, capable, and cost-efficient. Handles HEXACO personality inference, Schwartz values clustering, RIASEC profiling, and most behavioral dimensions.
Claude Haiku 4.5
Our fastest model. Used in swarm panel configurations for contrarian/evidence-skeptic roles, and for any lightweight classification or extraction tasks.
Ready to see it in action?
Create a free account and run your first analysis in minutes. No credit card, no waiting.
- 1. Ashton, M. C., & Lee, K. (2007). Empirical, Theoretical, and Practical Advantages of the HEXACO Model of Personality Structure. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 11(2), 150-166. journals.sagepub.com
- 2. Schwartz, S. H. (1992). Universals in the Content and Structure of Values: Theoretical Advances and Empirical Tests in 20 Countries. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 25, 1-65. psycnet.apa.org
- 3. Holland, J. L. (1997). Making Vocational Choices: A Theory of Vocational Personalities and Work Environments (3rd ed.). Psychological Assessment Resources. psycnet.apa.org
- 4. Sackett, P. R., Zhang, C., Berry, C. M., & Lievens, F. (2022). Revisiting Meta-Analytic Estimates of Validity in Personnel Selection: Addressing Systematic Overcorrection for Restriction of Range. Journal of Applied Psychology, 107(11), 2040-2068. doi.org/10.1037/apl0000994
- 5. Pletzer, J. L., Bentvelzen, M., Oostrom, J. K., & de Vries, R. E. (2019). A Meta-Analysis of the Relations Between Personality and Workplace Deviance: Big Five versus HEXACO. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 112, 369-383. doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2019.04.004