We help you hire
the best engineers
what you get
Engineers who challenge, not vibe coders
AI writes the code now. We test who can defend and extend what they shipped — not vibe coders who can't explain their own code.
The screen top candidates don't refuse
They dislike unfamiliar code tests — but not this one: they enjoy going deeper on work they've already built, the strongest hiring signal you can get.
Faster screening, shorter time-to-hire
Our AI screens candidates on their own time and hands you a ranked shortlist — fewer interview hours, shorter time-to-hire.
how it works
how we compare
Today's coding tests are easy to cheat: AI solves puzzles in seconds, take-homes get outsourced or AI-generated.
And the new AI coding tests sit candidates in front of an agent — on a codebase they've never seen.
| ProofCode | LeetCode / puzzle | Take-home | New AI tests | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tells an engineer from a vibe coder | ||||
| No unfamiliar code or stress | ||||
| Resists AI faking | ||||
| Zero interviewer hours |
Not sure if ProofCode is right for your team?
a 1-minute overview
pricing
All plans include all features
$399/mo billed annually
starting ~$999/month
faq
What if a candidate has no code to share?
Most do — especially senior engineers, who've built personal or freelance projects over the years that can usually be shared without legal issues. When they don't, ProofCode adapts: a smaller code sample still reveals architecture, style and problem-solving — and as a last resort we interview them on the take-home your team already runs. We never invent a fresh puzzle, and the assessment stays accurate whatever the size of the project.
Why is this better than LeetCode or take-home tests?
We're not anti-LeetCode, but when developers memorize solutions and AI solves problems in seconds, you need deeper insight for senior hires. Take-home tests aren't better — they can be outsourced or AI-generated. Technical discussions about real code reveal how candidates think, communicate and make decisions. ProofCode turns generic interviews into revealing technical conversations — which matters more than ever now that engineers spend more time reviewing and refining code than writing it from scratch.
How do you detect cheating?
Candidates who use fake code, AI-generated answers or memorized responses can't sustain a real technical discussion about code they didn't actually write — even if they prep questions on their own repo, they can't fake the deeper context. On their own codebase, where they've spent countless hours, they answer quickly and naturally, which fast reveals surface-level knowledge versus genuine experience building the system.
Is it legal and safe for candidates to share their code?
Yes. Candidates certify they have the legal right to share their code and are solely responsible for that decision. The code is deleted after analysis, and recruiters never see the actual code — only the generated questions, unless the candidate chooses to show specific snippets.
I'm not technical — can I still use this effectively?
Absolutely. For interviews, you control the technical depth — the AI generates questions at complexity levels matched to your comfort and the role. For screening it's even easier: our bot handles the technical conversation and gives you clear results and summaries afterward.
Ready to hire better?
Join companies who've stopped losing great engineers to bad interviews.
