Skills validation from real work to a documented decision
Skills validation with SkillsValidator checks whether a candidate can do the work they claim to do. Describe your role, invite candidates to complete relevant tasks, then review their work alongside explanations of their own decisions. You get a Skills Report that connects each score to evidence, with human review wherever an integrity signal needs context.
Skills Validation Report
Senior customer support specialist
Step 1 of 3
Describe the role and define what good work means
Start with the role, required skills, seniority, and validation style. SkillsValidator drafts a rubric for each skill and 3 to 6 tasks in minutes. Your hiring team edits the tasks and scoring criteria before inviting candidates, so the evaluation reflects the work and expectations of your actual opening.
Choose Work sample for a realistic deliverable, Scenario decisions for judgment under constraints, or Code task for technical work. A support role might need a response to a difficult customer. An engineering role might need a repair to a faulty workflow. Define success through observable actions rather than vague traits.
- Keep every skill connected to an essential job responsibility.
- Match task complexity to the seniority you need.
- Review instructions, permitted tools, and timing before sending invitations.
- Use the same approved rubric for candidates applying to the same role.
Explore the builder and reporting options in our skills assessment software.
Role title
Data analyst
Seniority
Mid
Skills to validate
Rubric
Data cleaning
- Profiles the dataset before changing it 1
- Handles missing values with a stated rule 1
- Merges duplicate categories and documents the mapping 1
- Checks an outlier before reporting it 1
- States the limits of the cleaned dataset 1
Task
1
Task
2
Task
3
Task
4
Step 2 of 3
Invite candidates to do the work and explain it
Send a candidate link or invitation to the role validation. Candidates complete timed tasks and answer explain-back questions generated from their own submission. SkillsValidator collects integrity signals during the work, giving reviewers context about the process as well as the finished answer and the candidate's explanation.
A finished response starts the conversation about skill. The follow-up checks why the candidate chose an approach, what could fail, and how they would adapt it. A polished answer alone cannot establish that understanding. The explanation makes the candidate's reasoning available for review against the same job-related criteria.
- Share the role expectations and permitted tool policy before work begins.
- Ask candidates to explain choices in the work they actually submitted.
- Keep concerns about authorship separate from the evidence of each skill.
Customer issue resolution
StrongRubric
Acknowledges the customer's concern without blaming them
"I understand why this looks like a duplicate charge."
Separates a pending authorization from a settled charge
"The first entry is settled; the second is a pending authorization."
Checks the billing record before promising a remedy
"I checked the invoice and payment history."
Gives a specific next action without guaranteeing a bank outcome
"If both entries settle, reply here and I will escalate the duplicate payment for review."
Step 3 of 3
Read the evidence and make the decision
The Skills Report gives you a score per skill, quoted evidence, and the rubric line by line. Recommendation bands labeled strong, verify, and not shown help organize review. Compare candidates on the same role, share a report PDF, and export results to your ATS using your plan's integration options.
Read the evidence behind a score before deciding what to do next. Strong indicates demonstrated evidence against the rubric. Verify directs attention to something that needs follow-up. Not shown means the submission does not demonstrate the required skill. None of these bands makes a hiring decision for you.
Use side-by-side comparison to discuss the same criteria across applicants. CSV export is available on Starter, webhook is added on Growth, and API access is available on Scale. See pre employment testing software for plan details and skills based hiring for a consistent evaluation approach.
Skills Validation Report
Senior customer support specialist
Test the reasoning behind the submitted answer
Explain-back questions focus on a candidate's own choices, making understanding part of the evidence. The follow-up asks the person to explain, defend, or extend the submitted work. This helps a reviewer distinguish a usable answer from demonstrated skill without treating writing style or polish as proof of authorship.
Consider a customer support task about a disputed charge. The candidate submits a reply that acknowledges the concern and promises a refund. A follow-up asks what they would change if the account record does not support that refund. Another asks which detail in the original request shaped their response.
The reviewer checks whether the explanation applies the policy, recognizes uncertainty, and preserves a clear next step for the customer. Technical teams can apply the same approach through our technical assessment platform.
Treat integrity signals as questions for a reviewer
Integrity signals identify activity that deserves a closer look, including paste events, typing rhythm, time-on-task anomalies, and similarity to known AI output. Every flag goes to human review and never to automatic rejection. A reviewer considers the task, the candidate's explanation, and relevant context before drawing a conclusion.
Pasting text can have an ordinary explanation. An unusual pause can reflect circumstances outside the task. Similarity to AI output is a signal, not a finding of misconduct. Review the combined evidence and give candidates a fair opportunity to clarify relevant concerns. Learn more about skills verification.
Integrity signals
Paste events
Flag for reviewA passage enters the response in one paste.
Typing rhythm
The response includes revisions to the explanation of the pending authorization.
Time on task
No time-on-task anomaly is flagged for this response.
Similarity to known AI output
Flag for reviewPhrasing overlaps with generic billing advice.
Give candidates a clear and relevant experience
Candidates receive an invitation to complete work tied to the role, followed by questions about their submission. The hiring company pays, and candidates never pay. Candidates who pass can opt into a free, portable Verified Skills profile and keep their report as a record of the skills they demonstrated.
The task set determines the time commitment. Communicate the expected duration and timing conditions before the candidate begins rather than promising a universal completion time. Candidates should choose a device suited to the work, especially when a task involves code or detailed analysis. Ask about device requirements before starting if anything is unclear.
Accommodation requests go to the employer, which remains responsible for arranging an appropriate process. Tell candidates whom to contact before they start a timed task. Profile participation is optional, and the employer's hiring decision remains separate from the candidate's choice to keep a portable record.
Timeline
Move from setup to review at your team's pace
The builder drafts tasks and rubrics in minutes, while your team controls the review and invitation schedule. Candidate completion depends on the task set and agreed timing. Once work and explain-back responses are available, reviewers use the report to assess evidence, resolve flags, and decide the next hiring step.
-
Before invitations, approve the role, rubric, tool policy, and candidate instructions.
-
During completion, let candidates work within the communicated conditions.
-
During review, check skill evidence and any integrity concerns together.
-
After review, share the report and record the employer's next step.
Frequently asked questions
Does the process work outside technical hiring
Yes. Work samples and scenario decisions support roles in support, sales, finance, operations, and other non-technical teams. The hiring team defines the skills and reviews the rubric. The same work-and-explain approach also supports employee skills assessment for development and internal opportunities across an existing workforce.
Can candidates use AI tools
The employer defines which tools are permitted for the role validation and communicates that policy before candidates begin. Explain-back questions still ask candidates to show understanding of their own submission. Integrity signals support human review of possible concerns, but they do not establish unauthorized AI use or trigger automatic rejection.
Does the report guarantee a fair hiring decision
The report supports job-related, consistent, documented evaluation by connecting scores to evidence and an explicit rubric. It does not provide legal certification or guarantee compliance. Employers remain responsible for task relevance, accommodations, interpretation of results, and hiring decisions, including how they investigate concerns and apply their evaluation standards.
See the work behind your next hiring decision
Try the one-time free demo on the home page to explore how a role becomes tasks, a rubric, and a Skills Report. No card is required. When you are ready to invite candidates, create your account and choose a paid subscription that fits your hiring team's needs.