Skip to content
SkillsValidator
Get started

Software skills assessment for engineering teams

SkillsValidator is a technical assessment platform that helps engineering teams check whether a candidate understands the code they submit. Replace open-ended take-homes with role-specific, timed code tasks and follow-up questions about the candidate's own solution. Review a Skills Report that connects each score to quoted evidence, rubric criteria, and an explanation of the technical decisions behind the work.

Get started See pricing

Make software skills assessment reflect real engineering decisions

Software skills assessment works best when the task reveals decisions the role actually requires. SkillsValidator pairs a code task with explain-back questions about the submitted solution. Reviewers inspect implementation and reasoning together, using an editable rubric that reflects the role's skills and seniority instead of relying on a polished answer alone.

Define the engineering responsibility before choosing the exercise. A maintenance role might require tracing a defect and making a limited repair. A data role might require explaining why a transformation produces a misleading result. Match the scope to the role and remove unrelated complexity that makes the task harder without making the evidence more useful.

  • Frontend tasks can examine interface state, accessibility decisions, and error handling.

  • Backend tasks can examine validation, failure paths, and data consistency.

  • Data tasks can examine transformations, missing values, and interpretation.

  • DevOps tasks can examine configuration, deployment risk, and recovery decisions.

For the broader workflow, see coding assessment and skills validation.

Check the explanation behind the code a candidate submits

Explain-back questions ask candidates to explain choices in their own submission, including assumptions, failure cases, and possible extensions. This adds evidence of understanding to the code itself. A reviewer can examine whether the candidate can reason through the solution rather than infer ownership from formatting, fluency, or apparent code quality.

An open-ended take-home can produce an impressive artifact while leaving the reviewer uncertain about how it was made. A defined task followed by submission-specific questions makes that uncertainty part of the evaluation. Communicate the permitted-tool policy before the task so candidates understand the conditions under which they complete the work.

Customer issue resolution

Strong

Rubric

Acknowledges the customer's concern without blaming them

"I understand why this looks like a duplicate charge."

1 / 1

Separates a pending authorization from a settled charge

"The first entry is settled; the second is a pending authorization."

1 / 1

Checks the billing record before promising a remedy

"I checked the invoice and payment history."

1 / 1

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."

1 / 1

Use technical skills screening software with human review

Technical skills screening software should surface concerns without turning them into automatic hiring decisions. SkillsValidator collects paste events, typing rhythm, time-on-task anomalies, and similarity to known AI output. Every integrity flag goes to human review and never to automatic rejection, with task evidence and the candidate's explanation available for context.

A code paste can reflect a permitted workflow, and familiar patterns can appear in independently written solutions. Reviewers examine relevant context and seek clarification when needed. The goal is to understand whether the candidate demonstrates the required skill under the communicated conditions, not to treat every unusual event as misconduct.

Learn how skills verification supports a documented review process.

Focus engineering review on evidence and unresolved questions

The Skills Report organizes a score per skill, quoted evidence, rubric lines, and a recommendation band labeled strong, verify, or not shown. Reviewers use this structure to locate the work behind an evaluation and identify specific follow-up questions. Side-by-side comparison keeps candidates for the same role against common criteria.

Read the supporting code evidence and explain-back answer against the rubric. If the implementation handles the normal path but leaves a failure mode unexplained, your next conversation has a concrete focus. The time required depends on the work and the questions that remain.

  • Agree on the required skills before invitations go out.

  • Read the evidence behind each score rather than advancing on a band alone.

  • Discuss flagged activity in context before drawing a conclusion.

  • Share the report PDF so reviewers discuss the same submission and criteria.

Explore report and comparison features in our skills assessment software.

Worked example

Review a backend change and the reasoning behind it

Consider a backend role responsible for handling repeated requests safely. The task asks the candidate to repair a workflow that can apply a change more than once. The rubric focuses on identifying the failure condition, preserving data consistency, and explaining the limits of the chosen approach under realistic request behavior.

The candidate submits a repair. An explain-back question asks what happens when repeated requests arrive close together. Another asks which assumption would need revisiting if the workflow included an external service. These questions connect directly to the submitted approach rather than asking the candidate to recite an unrelated definition.

The reviewer checks whether the explanation addresses the actual failure mode and recognizes the boundary of the fix. If an important assumption remains unsupported, the verify band directs attention to that gap and gives the hiring team a specific question to explore.

Carry technical evidence into the hiring team's decision

Build the validation with the role, skills, seniority, and Code task style, then review the drafted rubric and 3 to 6 tasks before inviting candidates. Share report PDFs with colleagues and export results to your ATS through the integration options in your plan, keeping technical evidence connected to the hiring discussion.

Growth includes webhook alongside CSV and provides 5 seats. Scale includes 20 seats, API plus webhook, a review queue, SSO, and an audit log. Talent Pool search of opt-in Verified Skills profiles is available on Scale and Enterprise. Compare pre employment testing software plans for the complete limits and billing options.

Frequently asked questions

[email protected]

Does this replace every technical interview

No. SkillsValidator adds structured evidence from a defined work task and the candidate's explanation. Your team decides which additional discussions are relevant to the role. Use the report to guide those discussions, especially where an assumption, missing skill, or unresolved question needs a closer look before an employment decision.

Can candidates use AI while completing code tasks

The employer sets and communicates the permitted-tool policy before candidates begin. Explain-back checks ask candidates to demonstrate understanding of their own code even when tools are allowed. Integrity signals prompt human review of concerns, but no signal establishes unauthorized AI use by itself or triggers an automatic candidate rejection.

How do we support a fair technical evaluation

Use job-related tasks, consistent rubric criteria, and conditions appropriate to the role. Candidates request accommodations through the employer before starting timed work. Employers remain responsible for accessibility arrangements, result interpretation, and hiring decisions. SkillsValidator supports documented evaluation but does not provide legal certification or a guarantee of compliance with employment requirements.

Validate the engineering skill behind the submitted solution

Create your account to build a technical validation around your role's actual responsibilities. Invite candidates to complete the work, then review their explanations alongside the code evidence. Start with a rubric your engineering team understands and use the report to make the next hiring conversation specific, consistent, and documented.

Validate skills