Description review

AI Agent Power User

micro1 · Australia, Canada, Ireland, New Zealand, United Kingdom, United States · back to the listing

HR standards

61/100

needs work

Title ↔ description

43/100

poor

Reads as

QA Engineer

85% confident

What this role officially is

software tester — ESCO, the EU occupation classification

Software testers perform software tests. They may also plan and design them. They may also debug and repair software although this mainly corresponds to designers and developers. They ensure that applications function properly before delivering them to internal and external clients.

Also known as: application software tester, unit tester, application tester, software application tester, tester, module tester

How others title the same work

Large employers

  • Senior Software Quality Engineer Adobe
  • Distributed Systems Testing Software Engineer, Python / Go Canonical
  • Ubuntu Linux Kernel Test Engineer Canonical
  • Distributed Systems Testing Software Engineer, Python / Go Canonical Ltd.
  • Ubuntu Linux Kernel Test Engineer Canonical Ltd.

Startups

  • Software Engineer, QA & Test Automation AviaryAI

What the listing never says

  • No pay range published. Candidates cannot tell whether applying is worth their time. Pay transparency

The listing, marked up

Nothing in the wording of this listing tripped a check. The scores above still judge how complete and coherent it is.

Role Title: AI Agent Power User

Role Type: Contractor

Location: Remote (US, CA, UK, IE, AU, NZ)

micro1 is engaging AI Agent Power Users to contribute to an enterprise AI training project with a leading customer. In this role, you'll apply your expertise to help train next-generation AI systems. Your work will shape how models learn, reason, and perform through high-quality, real-world input. No prior experience in AI is required — your domain knowledge is what matters.

Scope of Work

• Run complex, multi-step business scenarios using AI assistants such as ChatGPT and Claude, reflecting genuine professional workflows.

• Document each step, highlighting where AI performance aligns with or diverges from realistic business needs.

• Evaluate and score AI-generated outputs using specified rubrics and criteria, focusing on quality, completeness, and relevance.

• Draft clear, constructive, and actionable feedback based on rubric findings to inform AI research and product teams.

• Identify recurring patterns in AI behavior—strengths, weaknesses, and opportunities for process improvement.

• Connect AI tools to frequently used workplace platforms (e.g., Google Drive, Gmail, Slack, Notion) to mirror authentic use cases.

• Maintain meticulous written records and communicate findings in professional English, ensuring transparency and reproducibility.

Preferred Qualifications

• 5+ years of professional experience in any business function, utilizing technology to solve operational challenges.

• Completed Bachelor’s degree or higher in any discipline.

• Consistent, hands-on daily use of ChatGPT and/or Claude for actual work, not just experimentation.

• Experience grading, applying, or creating evaluation rubrics, QA scorecards, or content review guidelines (academic, QA, hiring, or annotation experience strongly valued).

• General comfort integrating AI tools with business software and productivity platforms.

• Demonstrated excellence in written English, with a focus on clear, actionable documentation and feedback.

• Authorized for contract work and based in the US, Canada, UK, Ireland, Australia, or New Zealand (US strongly preferred).

Originally posted on Himalayas

How this was produced

Highlights are found by rule, not by a model: each one is a phrase matched at a known position, and every note is a template we wrote. The two scores come from a typed-decision model (Jev) that reads the listing against the official role definition and real listings for the same role, and returns probabilities rather than prose — it never writes any of the words on this page, and never chooses what to highlight.

Deterministic penalty applied to the HR score: 4 points (from 65 before penalties). Reviewed 21 Sep 2026.