Sparsh Goyal

Hiring is broken. This interviewing system cut 45 day hiring cycles to 3 days. (steal it) Most hiring teams: → Spend 120+ hours interviewing for one role → Get "maybe" answers after 6 rounds → Pay $20K in engineer time per hire → Feels Interviewing = Screening (but its not) AI is solving many productivity problems, but hiring is still at bottom since recruiters feel that basic screening questions using Voice call workflow using VAPI has solved the problem. But here's how I solved it: → Using multi model from Anthropic, creating the system. → Create a role in 2 minutes (not a job description, an actual evaluation criteria) → Build a rubric that tests real skills, not interview performance → How to add 200+ candidates and let AI interview all of them. Any timezone. → What happens when AI goes 5 levels deep on "I scaled to 10M users" instead of saying "cool, next question" → How every rejected candidate gets specific feedback automatically. Not a template. Real reasons. → The exact settings and workflow. Every click documented. This is the system behind: → 95% of candidates eliminated before engineers spend a minute → 40+ days shaved off hiring cycles → 50+ hours of engineering time saved per hire → Every single candidate gets a fair interview and real feedback → 500 applicants. 3 hires. 3 days. <6 hours of human time. Want the full breakdown? (48 hours only) 1. Connect with me 2. Comment "ANTHROPIC" I'll send it. PS — Repost this for priority access

The "I already read your resume" lie. My panel lead said it last week. Three times. To three different candidates. He had not read the resume. I watched him glance at it for 4 minutes before each call. Saw the last company. Saw the title. Closed the tab. Opened Zoom. Then he'd say: "I've read your resume, so let's skip the basics." What he meant: I have no idea what's on this resume. His first question: "Tell me about your last role." She had two roles in the last 2 years. Both on page 1. The relevant one was the second. He didn't know that. She told him about the first one for 12 minutes. His second question: "What's the most complex system you've designed?" It was the lead project on page 1. Three bullets described it. She walked through it again, in the same order. 9 more minutes gone. Final question: "Why are you looking to move?" A 2-sentence summary at the bottom of the cover note answered this. He hadn't opened the cover note. Out of 45 minutes, he had 11 left for real questions. He asked one technical follow-up and ended with "this was great, we'll be in touch." Scorecard the next morning: "Technical depth: hard to assess in the time available. Recommendation: another round." We added another round. To her calendar. Because he hadn't done the 4 minutes of prep that would have made the first one useful. Here is what nobody on my team says out loud. It isn't just him. Five panelists. None read the resume. All open with "so I've reviewed your background." All burn the first 15 minutes asking her to summarize the PDF on their screen. She explains it 5 times. By round 3 she sounds rehearsed. By round 5 she sounds robotic. The panel then writes "answers felt canned" in the final debrief. She didn't sound canned. She sounded like someone who explained the same 3 bullets to 5 people who claimed to have read them. I'm the recruiter watching this loop every week. I send polished resumes. The panel doesn't open them. The candidate explains herself 5 times. The panel rejects her for "lack of clarity." I rebook the role. Source 12 more candidates. Send 12 more resumes nobody will read. The offer-accept rate keeps falling. Leadership keeps asking me why the pipeline is drying up. It isn't the pipeline. It's the 4 minutes of prep nobody on the panel will spend before they open Zoom.

Generic AI answers are KILLING your interview chances. That's why you sound identical to the last 10 candidates This multi-model workflow turns the same ChatGPT/Claude/Gemini prompt into a "Strong Hire" narrative the other million applicants will never get. (steal it) Most candidates using AI: → Type "give me a winning STAR answer" and take whatever it gives → Say "make it better" and get the same thing in a nicer shirt → Never spot the invisible tropes buried in a confident answer → Lose the job offer to someone whose story had actual tension and stakes So I put together something different: the 3-Layer AI Research System that pushes any model out of generic. Inside this free breakdown, I show you: → Multimodel Cross-Check. Fire one question at three frontier models at once, then cherry-pick the best lines from each. The winning answer is never one shot, it's parts of all of them. → Parallel Prompts. Explore five angles of the same idea in seconds instead of running them one slow chat at a time. Spot the nuance, keep the gold, drop the rest. → 1-Click Critique. The model finds its own weak spots, missing context, lazy assumptions, the counter-argument it skipped. Paste those back as constraints and it stops guessing what "better" means. This is the same setup behind: → High-stakes narratives built before your coffee cools → Spiky answers that get the panel talking about you in the hiring debrief → "Strong Hire" ratings that ChatGPT users simply cannot produce Want the full breakdown? (24 hours only) 1. Connect with me 2. Comment "PUSH" and I'll send it over. PS, repost this for priority access.

R.I.P Interviews The truth about interviews nobody admits The most confident person in the room is usually the least competent. I've taken 1,500+ interviews over 10 years. Here's the trap I watch panels fall into every single week. A candidate speaks fast. Drops heavy words. Sounds senior. Half the panel quietly thinks "this person knows more than me." So nobody digs. Everyone nods. The offer goes out. Three months later, they can't ship. The buzzwords were the performance. There was nothing underneath. Real signal isn't fluency. It's what happens when you ask "what broke?" and the talking suddenly slows down. I wrote down the exact patterns I use to separate real depth from a confident performance. The tells. The questions. The moment a faker always cracks. Want the full patterns breakdown? 1. Connect with me 2. Comment "SIGNAL" I'll send it.

The first candidate in the panel decides everyone else's score. Nobody admits this. Everyone does it. We interviewed 6 people for a senior role last month. Same panel. Same questions. Same rubric. First candidate was a 7. Solid. Not amazing. In the debrief, someone said "she's the bar." That sentence killed the next 5 candidates. Candidate 2 was actually stronger. Specific examples, sharper tradeoffs. Got an 8 in my notes. In the room? "She's good but not that different from the first one. Pass." Candidate 4 was a clear hire. The kind of person who'd outperform within a quarter. In the room? "I liked her, but I keep comparing her to candidate 1 and I'm not sure she's that much better." We hired candidate 1. Not because she was the best. Because she went first. Every candidate after her wasn't being measured against the rubric anymore. They were being measured against a memory of a person who happened to walk in the room before them. We didn't run 6 interviews. We ran 1 interview and 5 comparisons. And we called it a process.

I sent 11 offers last quarter. 4 came back signed. 3 came back with counters we couldn't match. 1 came back with a polite "I've decided to stay." 3 never replied at all. I want to talk about the 3. These were candidates we spent 5 to 7 weeks on each. Multiple rounds. Reference calls. Internal debates. We made them the best offer our comp band allowed. Then we sent it. And they vanished. No reply to the offer email. No reply to the follow-up. No reply to the "just checking in" 4 days later. No reply to the LinkedIn message. No reply to the recruiter who had been their main contact for 6 weeks. One of them updated her LinkedIn 11 days later. New company. Different city. She didn't even unfollow me. I used to take this personally. Like there was something I did wrong in the close. Then I started asking around. Every TA leader I talked to had the same number. 20 to 30% of offers now just go unanswered. Not declined. Unanswered. I figured out why. Candidates aren't running one process anymore. They're running 4. We were one of 4 finalists at 4 different companies. When the first offer landed, they took it. The other 3 offers became noise to delete. The candidate didn't owe me a reply. From their side, we were 1 of 4 brand names in their inbox that week, and another one moved first. Speed isn't a tiebreaker anymore. Speed is the entire game. Here is the part that actually hurts. The candidates who ghost us aren't the weak ones. The weak ones reply. They negotiate. They stay engaged because they need us more than we need them. The strong ones ghost. Because the strong ones have 3 other offers and don't have time to reply to the ones they're passing on. Which means every quarter, my offer acceptance rate is being calculated on a denominator that includes the candidates I most wanted to hire, going to other companies, without ever telling me. I look at my dashboard. It says 64% offer accept rate. It's lying. The real number, if you only count the candidates the hiring manager was excited about, is closer to 30%. We are systematically losing the candidates we wanted most. And the only signal we get is silence.

He called me on a Tuesday morning to tell me the offer was rescinded. I had already quit my job. 3 weeks earlier I signed the letter. Salary, start date, benefits, all of it. He had personally called me to congratulate me. Said the team was excited. Said start date was June 2nd. I gave notice the next morning. My manager was generous. Threw me a small farewell. The team got me a card. I trained my replacement for 2 weeks. Cleared my laptop on a Friday and walked out feeling like I'd done it right. Took 10 days off. Went somewhere quiet. Hiked. Reset. Came back on a Monday to start prep for the new role. Tuesday morning the recruiter called. "Hey, so. Some news. We have a hiring freeze effective immediately. The role is being put on hold. I'm so sorry." I asked when it would lift. "I don't have a timeline. Could be 30 days. Could be longer. I'm really sorry." I asked if there was any other role I could move into. Same team. Different team. Anything. "Nothing right now. But please stay in touch. We loved you." I had no job. No paycheck coming. Rent due in 12 days. Health insurance ending in 6. I called my old manager. Asked if I could come back. She was kind about it. Said they had already extended the role to the person I'd trained. There was nothing for me. I spent the next 4 months unemployed. Burned through savings. Pulled from my retirement to cover one month. Took a contract role at 60% of what I had been making just to stop the bleeding. Here is the part nobody talks about. The verbal "we'll honor the offer" is worth nothing. The signed letter is worth nothing. The handshake is worth nothing. The only thing that matters is whether the company has a financial incentive to honor what they promised. And they don't. The cost of rescinding an offer on a candidate who has already quit is, to the company, zero. No lawsuit they can't afford. No reputational hit that reaches the next candidate. The recruiter feels bad for a day. The CFO sleeps fine. The cost to the candidate is 4 months of rent. A career narrative that has to be explained to every interviewer for the next 2 years. "Hiring freeze" is what they called it. The actual definition is: we changed our mind, and you have to figure out how to survive that.

BREAKING: You don't need 100K followers to get paid by B2B tech brands on LinkedIn 🔥 If you post about SaaS, tech, sales, or entrepreneurship — brands want to work with you. Not the accounts with 200K followers. You. Naano is a marketplace that connects B2B tech companies with LinkedIn creators between 2,000 and 15,000 followers. Here's why it works: Nano-creators drive 3x more trust than big accounts. Your audience actually reads your posts. Brands know that. And now they're paying for it. How it works on Naano: → You browse available brand partnerships → You pick the ones that fit your content → You write the post yourself, your voice, your style → You get paid No scripts. No fake enthusiasm. No brand that owns your feed. Creators on Naano are already monetizing posts they would have written anyway. This is not an affiliate program. This is not a reach-out-and-pray collab. This is a real marketplace built for real creators. Want early access? 1. Follow me 2. Comment "NAANO" 3. I'll send you the link to apply directly via DM

Candidate showed up to round 4. Same role she'd been interviewing for over 6 weeks. Different panel this time. Three new people. First question from the new panel: "So tell us about yourself." She paused. "I've already done this 3 times with your team. Do you not have my notes from the previous rounds?" Awkward silence. One of them said "we like to form our own first impression." She did it again. Walked through her background for the 4th time. Then they asked her to explain the same project she'd already explained in rounds 1, 2, and 3. Then a system design question her round 2 interviewer had already given her. She answered all of it. Politely. Professionally. Rejection email two days later. Reason: "Answers felt rehearsed." Of course they felt rehearsed. She had rehearsed them. With your own team. Three times. And if she had changed her answers this round, you'd have rejected her for that too. "Story keeps shifting." "Inconsistent across rounds." "Couldn't get a straight read on her." You asked the same questions in 4 different rooms and then punished her for being consistent. The internal note in the ATS said "lacked spontaneity." Spontaneity wasn't on the job description. The job description asked for 8 years of backend experience and the ability to scale systems. She had both. But she answered your repeated questions the same way she'd already answered them. And that's what got her cut. We make candidates do 4 rounds of the same conversation and then reject them for sounding prepared.

6 offers sent. 5 days. 4 different roles. Not by rushing. Not by lowering the bar. By removing the 37 days of waiting that had nothing to do with evaluation. Here's exactly what happened last week: Monday morning: Uploaded 312 candidates across 4 roles. Built the JD and rubric for each role in under 10 minutes total. Used 3-4 bullet points per role, system generated the rest. First filter: deep CV and GitHub analysis narrowed 312 to 173. We kept the funnel wide on purpose. If someone had relevant signals but a messy resume, they stayed in. Monday to Wednesday: AI interviewed all 173. Live video. Real face. Adaptive follow-ups. Candidates picked their own time. Some interviewed at 2AM. Some at lunch. We didn't schedule a single one. Wednesday afternoon: I sat down and reviewed the top scorecards. About 2-3 minutes per candidate reading through notes, scores, and flagged moments. 8 candidates scored above 80/100 across the 4 roles. Thursday: hiring managers met the top 8. 30 minutes each. These weren't "can you code?" conversations. The depth was already proven. These were "do we want to build together?" conversations. Friday: 6 offers sent. 5 accepted within 48 hours. The bar didn't drop. The waiting dropped. Total human time across all 4 roles: 10 min building JDs and rubrics ~173 min reviewing scorecards (1 min each for top candidates) 4 hours of hiring manager final rounds (30 min x 8) About 7 hours total instead of 200+ Previous process for 4 roles: 6-8 weeks. 200+ hours of engineer time. 2-3 candidates lost to faster companies per role. Want the full system breakdown with free tools you can use today? 1. Connect with me 2. Comment "OFFERS" I'll send it.