Stop your senior engineers grading take-homes that were never going to pass
The upstream technical screen is where senior engineers lose hours reviewing submissions that obviously will not make it. InterviewGod auto-grades coding and technical assessments on correctness and approach, so your engineers only spend time on candidates who already cleared the bar.
A consistent, evidenced screen for engineering roles that shortlists before any human review — the same screen Banao runs on its own developer hires.
Banao — auto-screens its own engineering candidates before a senior reviewer is involved.
The point is to remove the obvious no's automatically, so human review starts at the shortlist, not the slush pile.
Auto-graded coding tasks
Submissions scored on correctness and approach, not just whether tests pass, so the screen reflects real engineering judgement.
Approach, not just output
The screen looks at how a problem was solved, surfacing strong engineers whose final answer alone wouldn't show it.
Consistent bar for every candidate
The same evaluation applied to everyone, so shortlists are comparable instead of dependent on who reviewed.
Shortlist before human time
Your engineers review only candidates who already passed, turning hours of grading into minutes on a shortlist.
Our own developer screen runs before any senior review
Banao auto-screens its own engineering candidates on InterviewGod before a senior engineer reviews anyone, which is how a 300-person company hires developers without drowning its seniors in grading.
Automate the screen, hand off the deep round
Pair this with Banao's technical interview outsourcing: automation clears the upstream screen, and Banao engineers run the deeper live rounds — your seniors stay off both.
Metrics shown dotted (··) are being finalised in our case-study metrics pack. The deployment is real; we will not publish a number before it is verified.
Our developer hiring screens this way first
Banao auto-screens its own engineering candidates before a senior reviewer touches a submission. The grading time we save ourselves is the same time the screen returns to your engineers.
Because our own developer hiring depends on this screen, it is tuned to catch the strong engineers whose work would be missed by a tests-only check — and to drop the obvious no's automatically.
InterviewGod
Auto-screens Banao's own engineering candidates first.
Vikaas
Sources the developers the screen then evaluates.
When automated technical screening falls short
Automation handles the screen, not the whole evaluation. We will be clear on its limits:
Senior architecture and design
a live round with an engineer judges this better than an auto-graded task.
Tiny engineering pipelines
if you hire a developer rarely, a manual review may be simpler than configuring a screen.
Whole-person fit
the screen rates ability, not collaboration or culture — keep those in human rounds.
We calibrate the screen against engineers you already rate.
Screening Pilot Sprint
We configure the technical screen and run it against engineers you have already hired, so you see how its shortlist matches your own judgement. Yours to judge.
Configure & integrate
We tune tasks and scoring to your stack and roles and wire results into your ATS so scores travel with the candidate.
Run & pair with live rounds
Roll out the upstream screen, and pair it with human or outsourced deep rounds for the candidates who pass.
The questions buyers ask first.
Does it just check if tests pass?
How does this differ from a coding interview platform?
Will it reflect our stack and standards?
Can we combine it with human interviews?
Hand the slush pile to automation
Tell us how many hours your engineers lose to grading. In 30 minutes we'll scope the screen that takes it off them.
Book a demo →