Evidence you can make
a decision from.
Not recruiter opinion.
Most shortlists are formatted CVs with a summary call attached. Talhive's candidate assessment produces a written intelligence brief for every shortlisted candidate, competency evidence, motivation analysis, risk flags, and a pool rank, before the first interview. You read the candidate before you commit time to meeting them. This is what structured candidate assessment is supposed to do, and rarely does in practice.
The brief does not begin with the candidate. It begins with the role. The brief determines the scoring criteria. The criteria determine the evidence we gather. The evidence goes into writing before any recommendation is made. That sequence is why the document is useful rather than decorative.
Five sections.
Every shortlisted candidate.
Every section is written against the specific role brief, not a generic template. Gaps that matter are named. If a dimension cannot be verified, it is marked as unverifiable, not estimated.
A composite score with
the evidence to defend it.
Each dimension is scored 1 to 10 and labelled. The composite is a weighted average calibrated to what the specific role requires most. Pool rank tells you where this candidate sits relative to everyone assessed for the same mandate.
Technical competency with
production evidence.
The engineering assessment framework is built around what candidates have shipped in production, not what they can articulate in a whiteboard session. Every dimension requires verifiable evidence from the candidate's actual career before a score is applied.
Hands-On Execution is always a gate criterion in engineering assessments. A candidate who cannot demonstrate production-grade, hands-on engineering work does not clear the gate, regardless of their scores on other dimensions.
This criterion is applied before any shortlist presentation. It cannot be waived.
The Chhatrasal Bundela Intelligence Dossier
Founding Senior Android Engineer, Asymmetric Labs, Bengaluru. Open case study showing the full engineering assessment format, 12 dimensions, composite score 8.1/10, pool rank, culture fit fingerprint, 12-month value projection, and closing strategy.
Product judgment. Not a process audit.
Product assessment cannot be done through CV review alone. The dimensions that distinguish strong PMs, problem framing quality, prioritisation under constraint, how they work with engineering, require direct conversation and structured evidence-gathering.
Beyond the portfolio.
Portfolio review reveals craft in controlled conditions. The design assessment framework tests the thinking, collaboration quality, and judgment that portfolios do not show, the dimensions that determine whether a designer is effective inside a real product organisation.
Want to see the
assessment in full?
The Chhatrasal Bundela Intelligence Dossier is an open sample of Talhive's candidate assessment — a real engineering assessment, composite score, culture fit fingerprint, 12-month value projection, and competitive risk assessment. Request it directly.