Show HN: I was tired of wasting engineer time on screening calls so I built Niju
43 comments
·November 3, 2025whatsakandr
radug14
I understand and agree, but this is a technical screening. Typically you would have someone from HR have an initial conversation with the applicant to align. This comes after, if it's a go from both parties.
Furthermore, Niju does not automate the decision. AI is only used to create a transcript, a summary of the interview with, a list of important moments and a set of indicative scores on a number of criteria.
The decision is always with the human.
gpm
As a candidate I'm no more "done" evaluating the company after a first screening then the company is done evaluating me.
As someone with the privilege to be able to reject job opportunities, it's all but certain running into a tool like this would result in me immediately doing so.
vorpalhex
If you can't take time to screen me, I can't take time to be bothered with your company.
Hiring is the most important part of your job.
doctor_radium
I'm more a syadmin type than a developer, but still get hit with online "testing" requests sometimes: a couple SQL tests for some support position, a couple psychological tests, etc. These are now a hard line for me. Why? Maybe I misunderstand...but my time is valuable, too. If HR or the hiring manager wants to reach out for a round 1 interview and then tell me a week later I'm one of your top candidates, and would I please take some online testing to continue the process, fine. But not the other way around.
radug14
Yes. Niju is not meant to be your first interaction with the company. You first speak to the hiring manager and only then you proceed to this stage.
radug14
Hi everyone, I’m Radu.
In my personal experience, screening software engineers has always put pressure on internal engineering teams. Over the years, I’ve tried different approaches to streamline the process, but nothing has really fixed the problem of investing engineering time into screening.
At the start of the year I went through BetterStack’s recruitment process. Their first stage, an in-house built async screening test, was a revelation for me. I thought this was a fantastic alternative for an early stage in the recruitment pipeline. Back in February, while I was actively hiring at the startup I was working with, I prototyped a solution and trialed it - it was a success.
Fast forward a few months and I’ve now been able to turn the early prototype into a product. Meet Niju.
Niju replaces the traditional screening call with a 20-minute, asynchronous, recorded coding session.
A candidate gets a link, shares their screen, and "thinks aloud" while solving a practical coding challenge (no abstract algorithms).
After 20 minutes, Niju analyses the entire session: the code, the audio, and the thought process. It gives the hiring manager a concise report, transcripts, code playback and the raw footage with the important parts annotated. This means that, on average, a Niju interview takes 5 minutes to review.
* Cheating: Yes, a candidate can use Google. That's the point. I want to see how they solve a problem, not what they've memorised. The screen recording shows their whole process.
* AI: The AI does not produce a "pass/fail" decision. It just summarises the data to help a human make a better, faster, and more consistent decision.
* Stack: As a solo builder, I'm keeping it simple: SvelteKit, DrizzleORM, BullMQ, Postgres, Redis, Azure OpenAI.
The goal is to help busy engineering teams reclaim their time.
You can try the first interview for free.
I’ll be here for a while to answer questions and I'd be honored to get your feedback.
Radu
abtinf
I hope your product sees some adoption. Use of such a system would be a high-signal indicator for companies to avoid.
radug14
May I ask why?
I would never approve the use of async interviews further down the pipeline, but for screening purposes (from a candidate POV) I personally don't have any problems.
Keen to hear your point of view!
parliament32
Because interviews are a two-way street. If you can't commit the time to interview and want to offload it to AI, why shouldn't I also have AI take the interview for me? Or you do you think my time is worth less than yours?
This is pretty gross, honestly. I recommend some reflection.
yannyu
If as a hiring organization, you aren't willing to spend the effort, time, and money to provide a good recruiting process, that's a huge red flag for the kind of candidates you want and the kind of employee experience you provide. If you're willing to cut costs in finding candidates, that could signal you're willing to cut costs for retaining candidates too.
rendall
Back in the day, some kind of online sticker company needed a developer. I submitted my resume and they told me via email I needed to pass an online test. The testing was very similar to your company, only of course no AI. I was nervous. Super nervous. Shaking. Psyched myself up for an entire day, then logged in and absolutely crushed it. Crushed that test. It was hard but easier than I expected. Passed 100%. The sticker company then emailed me that they chose someone else, somebody else had a better resume, even though there was no interview. The test was cheap for them, but cost me. So cheap for this sticker company that they could afford to consider my resume only after I had crushed their dumb-ass test.
There needs to be some cost or pain for the interviewers to signal that they actually care.
So, to answer your question, if a company were to outsource their screening calls, it signals to me that they do not have the time to understand their candidates. They simply do not care, which means they don't care for their employees either.
radug14
This is a super tough, but incredibly valuable thread. Thank you all for the raw feedback.
I need to be clear: I 100% agree with the core sentiment here. As a candidate, the hiring process is often broken, dehumanising, and feels like a one-way street. Many of you are right when saying a tool like this could be abused.
I'm not trying to automate the human part of hiring. I'm trying to fix the part that's already broken.
The real-world alternative at most companies isn't a friendly 1-hour chat with a senior engineer for every single applicant, that just doesn’t scale.
The alternative is:
1. A harsh, biased CV filter that rejects 95% of applicants in a couple of seconds.
2. A 4-hour take-home exercise that massively wastes your time and is genuinely pointless because anyone can vibe code it.
3. An algorithm test from a platform like HackerRank for which the majority of engineers have to prep many hours.
I built Niju to be less painful than those. It's a 20-minute, practical, "think-aloud" test. The AI's only job is to summarise the data so a human can review it faster, making it more likely they'll widen the funnel and give more people a shot beyond just their CV.
My goal isn't to replace engineers but to stop wasting their time on a broken process, so they can have better, human interviews with the top 20% of candidates.
It's a massive challenge, and this thread, as well as most of the others, show the raw nerve I've hit.
t_mann
Do you realize that your product will only lead to more time being wasted on the side of the applicants, who are already the weaker party? How do you justify that?
radug14
Hey! I think it's quite the opposite, and I'll explain why.
Let me just apply one example. A few years ago I was screening candidates over a 30-minute live coding interview covering pretty day to day stuff. That required a 30 minute investment from the applicant in what is a high-stress situation for many. I can't tell you how many times they seemed very stressed simply because they had to code in a live interview setting knowing someone is actively watching what they are doing.
Now compare that to a 20-minute screening interview where most of that pressure is gone. You can do it whenever you want to.
That is my rationale behind it, thinking both as an applicant and as a hiring manager.
Why do you think this leads to more wasted time?
t_mann
How is "most of that pressure gone"? You're still being evaluated and have to code against a clock, with less time, less opportunities to ask questions and less immediate feedback that could get you back on track.
Also, your 20 vs 30 minute calculation ignores that companies are incentivized to conduct more screening tests if it becomes practically free for them. But the number of positions stays the same. So if instead of 10 screening calls they do 16 tests for one position, that's already more time being wasted, even if the tests are 1/3 shorter. And realistically, the number will shoot up much more.
radug14
The challenges are designed for an average engineer at the job opening level (junior, mid, senior) to solve in approximately 10 minutes. Furthermore, they are practical day-to-day tasks that should not put pressure just by nature of what's being asked.
For your last point, a review takes on average 5 minutes for a hiring manager. And I think screening more is not inherently a problem. Imagine they turned down the dial on their CV filters and had more applicants do a technical screen - wouldn't that give more applicants an opportunity to shine? In most cases it unfortunately is a numbers game.
helicone
Because an automated screening system allows the company to screen many more candidates without interacting with them, which they will do, which will make the majority of these screenings wasted effort.
Let's look at two cases to see why this is: Case 1: company does 10 30 minute in-person technical interviews for a role for equally qualified candidates, doesn't use automated testing. Every candidate knows that because they're talking to a human, so they know they're dealing with a human hiring process that deals with time constraints. They KNOW that they're one of a small group of people selected to move forward. They can reasonably calculate a value for their in-person technical interview as having a 10% chance of success. If they do 7 interviews like this they have a >50% chance of getting hired by someone, which would take them only 3.5 hours of interview time to achieve. Each such hiring process has only take up a combined 5 hours of candidate time.
Contrast this with case 2: company uses your system, and so technically screens 1000 equally qualified candidates in the same period with no human interaction. The candidate now has no idea where they stand in the applicant pool, but they effectively have a 0.1% of getting hired by this company. If they do 666 interviews, they still don't have a 50% chance of getting hired by any company doing interviews like this, and they will have spent two whole weeks of their life not eating or sleeping, just doing interviews. That company will have wasted three weeks of candidate time conducting this round of interviews.
Furthermore, the 10 minute time difference is irrelevant, the candidate already doesn't care when they do the interview, and the pressure in no way lessened. They still have to perform in a 30 minute window, and they will still be nervous. The only difference is the recorded screening is more impersonal, which allows the candidate less opportunity to make a human impression on the hirer.
Your system assumes the applicant's time has no value.
radug14
If they do what you said, they will have no way to actually differentiate between candidates so they will waste their time and money on using my platform. Doing screening calls asynchronously doesn't open the floodgates.
The purpose of a screening is not to determine competence, it is to determine whether recruit and company want to work together, which cannot be automated.