For engineering teams
Assessly scores every candidate twice, the code and the explanation behind it, so the signal you advance on measures understanding, not just output.
The false positive
A passing submission looks the same whether the candidate wrote it, found it, or generated it. The checkmark can't tell you which.
Every interviewer runs a slightly different bar, and senior hours are the most expensive way to discover a candidate can't explain their own code.
A test that only checks output says nothing about whether a candidate can reason about what they built. That is the part you are hiring.
What dual scoring changes
Every submission comes back with two scores and the candidate's own reasoning attached. Before anyone books a panel, you already know four things.
The onsite stops being a screen, and goes back to being an interview.
Built for hiring
Screening
Correctness and explanation, scored together, so you see real understanding before anyone books a panel.
First rounds
JD-aware first-round interviews with consistent, scored feedback, without the scheduling tax on your engineers.
Calibration
Standardized rubrics and dual scores make candidates comparable across every reviewer, every round.
4
Explanation rubric dimensions
2
Scores per submission
5
Sandboxed languages
Raise the bar
Book a demo and watch a candidate scored on the code and the understanding behind it.
Guided pilots available before any annual commitment.
Standardize the bar
See dual scoring on real candidates, the code and the reasoning behind it, and advance on a signal you can stand behind.