We built CodeVerdict because reviewing take-homes was broken.
Every engineering team we talked to had the same complaint: take-home assignments take hours to review properly, reviewers cut corners under time pressure, and AI-written submissions slip through unnoticed. Hiring decisions ended up driven by gut feel instead of evidence.
Our mission
Make the take-home review the fastest and fairest part of the technical interview, not the slowest. Every candidate gets the same depth of review. Every requirement gets mapped to actual evidence in the code. Every report tells you what to ask in the follow-up interview.
We think hiring teams should be spending their time talking to candidates, not grepping their code at 11pm.
What we believe
Every requirement should be linked to an actual file, function, or test — not a reviewer's mood.
We surface AI-written code as a signal, not a verdict. You decide whether it's a dealbreaker for your role.
Reviews should fit between meetings. Anything longer and reviewers cut corners.
Who's behind this
CodeVerdict is built by engineers who have done both sides of technical hiring: writing take-homes as candidates, and reviewing them as hiring managers. We've felt every sharp edge — the late-night reviews, the "did they really write this?" moments, the "we already lost this candidate to a faster team" moments.
We're shipping in the open. Send feedback and tell us what your current take-home review looks like — we'd love to make it faster.
Questions? [email protected]
See it for yourself.
One sign-in. One GitHub URL. One full report in 60 seconds.