Question 1

Is this another anti-cheat tool?

Accepted Answer

No. We do not look for cheating; we answer a narrower question: did the person who sent this code write it? We watch how the answer gets built — the code as it grows, the false starts, the fixes — so you can see how they thought and wrote it. Real work looks nothing like a pasted answer, so cheating shows up on its own. A flag can send a session to a person. It never turns a candidate down.

Question 2

Does this replace our ATS?

Accepted Answer

No, and it does not compete with one. An applicant system stores what a candidate submitted and moves them through stages. QualifyCode runs a live session and keeps the record of it: the code, every save, and the decision made on the result. Nothing connects the two. Intake is a typed or pasted list of up to 500 email addresses per assessment, and each assessment carries a free-text reference you set when you create it. That reference sits on the assessment record; it is not carried into the exports.

Question 3

Our recruiters already screen. Why insert a stage?

Accepted Answer

Their screen is unrecorded, and it happens before any evidence exists. A recruiter reading a document is judging a claim. This stage is the first pre-interview decision made on work the candidate actually did — and the only one where the reason, the reviewer and the bar are stored beside the outcome.

Question 4

We have no applicant system. Does this still fit?

Accepted Answer

It fits better, because there is less to connect. Paste the list you already keep, up to 500 email addresses per assessment, and each assessment carries a free-text reference you set when you create it.

Question 5

What about candidates who use scratch paper, or look away to think?

Accepted Answer

They declare a scratchpad before starting, and looking at it is recorded as note-taking. That is the point of the setup step. Each candidate is measured against their own baseline — camera, lighting, screen position — not a fixed threshold that penalises a wide-angle webcam or a dim room.

Question 6

How is this different from a coding test with proctoring bolted on?

Accepted Answer

A coding test grades the answer. We keep the process. Each save is compared against the one before it, so the session becomes something you can scrub: the code at any second, what changed, and the webcam frame at the same moment. Forty minutes of iteration and four minutes of pasting are different candidates. A submission-only record cannot tell them apart.

Question 7

Is this legal to use in the EU?

Accepted Answer

QualifyCode records what was decided, on which evidence, under which policy version, and by whom. It also ships a four-fifths impact export, an explanation pack and identity-preserving erasure. A publishable Local Law 144 audit additionally requires candidate-provided demographic inputs.

Question 8

How does candidate intake work?

Accepted Answer

Type or paste up to 500 candidate email addresses, review the validation summary and send. Each assessment also carries a free-text reference you set when you create it, which appears on the assessment record.

Question 9

How does the report handle evidence states?

Accepted Answer

The evidence meter names every completed, pending and not-measured check. Recommendations require the assessment and code-analysis evidence. An unmeasured dimension stays out of the score rather than counting as a zero.

Question 10

Which languages and problems are supported?

Accepted Answer

Seven languages are gradeable today — Python, TypeScript, Java, C++, C#, Go and Rust — each with its own deterministic test harness. The library holds thousands of problems across difficulty levels and concept tags, and any problem can be regenerated as an equivalent variation.

Question 11

How does billing work?

Accepted Answer

You buy credits and spend one per candidate. No seat licence, no platform fee, no annual commitment, no overage, and credits never expire. A quiet quarter costs nothing, and a hiring surge costs the same per candidate as the first one did.