How the work gets scored.
Every candidate is measured against a rubric written for the role — scored criterion by criterion by an AI that shows its evidence, then a person makes the call. No trivia, no black box, no automatic verdicts.
A rubric for the role
Each scenario carries a weighted list of criteria written for that role — not a fixed, one-size trivia bank.
Every score cites the transcript
An AI judge scores each criterion 0–100 with a written reason pointing back to what the candidate actually did.
A human makes the call
Scores are an input, not a verdict. A named reviewer marks Pass, Maybe, or No — Can You Build? never decides on its own.
Written for the role, weighted on purpose.
When you author a campaign, the scenario comes with a set of criteria and weights that match what the job actually needs. Before the timer starts, the candidate is told the criteria they'll be scored on — the bar is explicit, not a secret. (The weighting behind them is yours; we author weights to add up to 100%, and they're always applied relative to each other.)
And they're fixed before the first candidate starts. The rubric is frozen onto each candidate's run, and there is no way to re-weight it afterwards until a preferred candidate rises to the top — that isn't evidence, it's picking a winner and working backwards.
Example — a "Deep debug" scenario for a backend hire:
Did they find the actual problem at each layer?
Did they ask smart, targeted questions of the AI?
Are the proposed fixes correct and production-ready?
How directly did they get there — signal over thrash?
A number you can trace back to a sentence.
Each criterion is scored 0–100 with a short written reason for that score. The overall is a weighted aggregate across criteria and stages — and it reports its coverage, so a partial run never masquerades as a complete one. The reasons sit next to the full transcript, so you can check the judge's work against what the candidate actually did.
Traced the timeout to the connection pool, not the query — confirmed with a targeted follow-up.
The call is a person's. Always.
A named reviewer reads the report and the transcript, then records a decision. The score informs it; it never makes it. Can You Build? never accepts, rejects, ranks, or shortlists a candidate on its own — and the rubric, scores, reasons, decision and notes export as one auditable trail.
Reviewer decisions — the candidate is never told a score, and no verdict is automatic.
See the framework in motion.
Walk through one candidate, from the challenge to the scored report.