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.