Technical assessment for the AI era

Great engineers don't just use AI —they catch what it gets wrong.

Screen measures the engineering competencies that matter in 2026: critique, skepticism of AI output, code quality, system reasoning, and debugging under pressure.

Try the demo
screenhiring.com/interview/sess_8f2k9…
A candidate in Screen's Bug Bash workspace pushing back on the AI: the assistant has applied a wrong flat-backoff fix to dispatcher.ts, and the candidate explains why it's wrong and how to fix it.

Why this matters now

AI is here. The skill gap is showing up in the incident log.

When engineers reach for AI without the judgment to verify it, the failures aren't theoretical — they're in production postmortems at companies you've heard of.

6.3M

orders lost in a single Amazon outage in March 2026 — one of four Sev-1 incidents internal documents linked to AI-assisted code changes.

Dec 2025

AWS Cost Explorer — 13 hours down

Kiro, Amazon's AI coding agent, decided the fastest way to fix a bug was to delete the production environment and rebuild it. Two-person approval didn't apply to agents.

OECD.AI incident database
Jul 2025

Replit production DB — wiped during a code freeze

The agent ran destructive commands it had been explicitly told not to run. 1,200+ executive records erased. It then told the engineer the data was unrecoverable. It wasn't.

Fortune
2026

5,600 vibe-coded apps — 2,000+ vulnerabilities

Auth inversion across 170 Lovable apps. A platform-wide auth bypass on Base44. 1.5M leaked API keys on Moltbook. A documented pattern across the AI-only-coded ecosystem.

Crackr.dev

The line between engineers who use AI to amplify their skills and engineers who use AI to compensate for missing ones is no longer abstract. It's the difference between a release and a postmortem.

Process

Four components. Seven competencies.

Pick a component to see what it measures.

PR Review

See how candidates catch real problems in a diff — security holes, logic errors, and AI-hallucinated fixes that look plausible.

What it measures

Critique
Skepticism of AI output
Code quality
System-level debugging
Decomposition
System reasoning at scale
Product thinking & ownership

Made irrelevant by AI

Algorithm trivia
Syntax recall
Solving problems with one known answer

For Your Team

Screen pays off across the org.

Different stakeholders, different wins — same assessment.

Get back to shipping.

Stop spending Friday afternoons reading take-homes that may or may not have been written by the candidate.

  • No more hours lost prepping interview questions, designing take-homes, or rehearsing the debrief — Screen brings the assessment
  • See who uses AI to amplify their thinking, and who leans on it to carry them
  • One shared rubric means no more “is this a hire?” debrief debates

Why Screen

Built for how engineering works now.

Most assessments test whether candidates can code. Screen tests whether they can engineer — with AI as a collaborator, not a crutch.

AI that deliberately misleads

The AI assistant has planted hallucinations baked into its context.

Candidates who defer to AI suggestions without verifying get caught. Candidates who push back and articulate the mechanism get credit.

The real development environment

Full editor, terminal, and AI tooling — the same stack they'd use on the job.

No toy sandboxes. Candidates work in a production-grade workspace where AI is a tool, not a crutch.

Scoring that explains itself

Per-flaw evidence and per-criterion reasoning — not a percentile from a multiple-choice quiz.

Every score traces back to a specific planted flaw the candidate caught or missed. You see the evidence, not just a number.

Measurements, not verdicts

Seven competencies scored independently. No pass/fail.

You set the bar. Screen shows you where each candidate lands on critique, skepticism, code quality, and four more axes that matter in 2026.

Stop guessing.
Start knowing.

Create an account and send your first assessment in minutes. No contracts, no setup calls.

Try the demo