InterviewGod · Technical screening
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.
Submissions scored on correctness and approach, not just whether tests pass, so the screen reflects real engineering judgement.
The screen looks at how a problem was solved, surfacing strong engineers whose final answer alone wouldn't show it.
The same evaluation applied to everyone, so shortlists are comparable instead of dependent on who reviewed.
Your engineers review only candidates who already passed, turning hours of grading into minutes on a shortlist.
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.
Banao (internal)
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.
Cross-sell: technical interview outsourcing
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.
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.
Automation handles the screen, not the whole evaluation. We will be clear on its limits:
We calibrate the screen against engineers you already rate.
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.
We tune tasks and scoring to your stack and roles and wire results into your ATS so scores travel with the candidate.
Roll out the upstream screen, and pair it with human or outsourced deep rounds for the candidates who pass.
Does it just check if tests pass?
No — it scores correctness and approach, so it can surface strong engineers whose solution quality wouldn't show from a pass/fail check alone, and flag brittle solutions that happen to pass. It is built to reflect engineering judgement, not just output.
How does this differ from a coding interview platform?
Technical screening automation is the upstream, asynchronous filter that shortlists before any human time. The coding interview platform is the live, proctored round you run later with the candidates who pass. One filters breadth; the other goes deep.
Will it reflect our stack and standards?
Yes. Tasks and scoring are tuned to your stack and roles in the Pilot Sprint, and calibrated against engineers you have already hired, so the screen matches your bar rather than a generic one.
Can we combine it with human interviews?
That is the recommended setup. Automation clears the upstream screen so your engineers — or Banao's, via technical interview outsourcing — run only the deeper live rounds for candidates who already passed.
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
