Description review
Senior Software Engineer, AI Training - CA
G2i · Canada · back to the listing
HR standards
83/100
solid
Title ↔ description
45/100
poor
Reads as
QA Engineer
89% 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
- 29 bullet points. Long requirement lists deter qualified candidates, who read them as hard gates. Scope clarity
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.
Contract | Remote, worldwide | $100-$200/hour depending on experience and location | 10-20 hrs/week
Check out this Loom video for more details:
We're looking for highly experienced software engineer (SR+) to help evaluate the quality of interactions with modern coding agents such as OpenAI Codex and Claude Code.
This is not a traditional engineering role. You won't be writing production code. You'll be evaluating something harder: whether the model thinks like a great engineer.
What this role actually is
You will assess how AI coding agents behave in real-world scenarios, focusing on:
• Whether the response makes sense
• Whether the preamble and reasoning are useful
• Whether the output reflects strong engineering judgment
• Whether the interaction feels right to an experienced developer
This role is about engineering taste. Syntax correctness is the easy part.
What you'll be doing
• Evaluate AI-generated coding interactions end to end
• Judge whether outputs are useful, correct at a high level, and aligned with how a strong engineer would think
• Assess the quality of explanations and reasoning, not just the code
• Distinguish between levels of response quality (what makes something a 2 vs a 4)
• Give clear, opinionated feedback in writing on what worked, what didn't, and what felt off or misleading
• Help define what great looks like when working with tools like Cursor, Codex and Claude Code
What we mean by "taste"
We're looking for engineers who can answer questions like:
• Does this feel like something a strong engineer would actually say?
• Is this explanation helpful, or just technically correct?
• Is the model guiding the user well, or just dumping output?
• Would this interaction build or erode trust?
You should be comfortable making subjective but rigorous judgments, and explaining them clearly.
Who you are
• Senior, Staff or Principal-level engineer (or equivalent experience)
• Strong background in TypeScript/JavaScript or Python
• Hands-on experience with at least one of OpenAI Codex, Claude Code or Cursor
• Deep familiarity with modern AI-assisted dev workflows
• Able to evaluate code without executing it or reviewing every line
• Strong written and spoken English (B2 or above). You'll be writing detailed feedback and recording short video explanations, so this is a hard requirement
• Comfortable giving direct, opinionated feedback
• High bar for what good engineering looks like
Nice to have
• Prior exposure to prompt design or evaluation workflows
• Experience mentoring senior engineers or defining engineering standards
Engagement details
• Rate: $100-$200/hour depending on experience and location
• Hours: 10-20 hours/week, flexible
• Duration: ongoing. Projects run from about two weeks to a few months each, and we offer new ones to evaluators who do well
• Start: as soon as you clear the take-home and a project has an open seat
• Process: one take-home evaluation exercise with a recorded Loom walkthrough. No interview
Originally posted on Himalayas
Check out this Loom video for more details:
We're looking for highly experienced software engineer (SR+) to help evaluate the quality of interactions with modern coding agents such as OpenAI Codex and Claude Code.
This is not a traditional engineering role. You won't be writing production code. You'll be evaluating something harder: whether the model thinks like a great engineer.
What this role actually is
You will assess how AI coding agents behave in real-world scenarios, focusing on:
• Whether the response makes sense
• Whether the preamble and reasoning are useful
• Whether the output reflects strong engineering judgment
• Whether the interaction feels right to an experienced developer
This role is about engineering taste. Syntax correctness is the easy part.
What you'll be doing
• Evaluate AI-generated coding interactions end to end
• Judge whether outputs are useful, correct at a high level, and aligned with how a strong engineer would think
• Assess the quality of explanations and reasoning, not just the code
• Distinguish between levels of response quality (what makes something a 2 vs a 4)
• Give clear, opinionated feedback in writing on what worked, what didn't, and what felt off or misleading
• Help define what great looks like when working with tools like Cursor, Codex and Claude Code
What we mean by "taste"
We're looking for engineers who can answer questions like:
• Does this feel like something a strong engineer would actually say?
• Is this explanation helpful, or just technically correct?
• Is the model guiding the user well, or just dumping output?
• Would this interaction build or erode trust?
You should be comfortable making subjective but rigorous judgments, and explaining them clearly.
Who you are
• Senior, Staff or Principal-level engineer (or equivalent experience)
• Strong background in TypeScript/JavaScript or Python
• Hands-on experience with at least one of OpenAI Codex, Claude Code or Cursor
• Deep familiarity with modern AI-assisted dev workflows
• Able to evaluate code without executing it or reviewing every line
• Strong written and spoken English (B2 or above). You'll be writing detailed feedback and recording short video explanations, so this is a hard requirement
• Comfortable giving direct, opinionated feedback
• High bar for what good engineering looks like
Nice to have
• Prior exposure to prompt design or evaluation workflows
• Experience mentoring senior engineers or defining engineering standards
Engagement details
• Rate: $100-$200/hour depending on experience and location
• Hours: 10-20 hours/week, flexible
• Duration: ongoing. Projects run from about two weeks to a few months each, and we offer new ones to evaluators who do well
• Start: as soon as you clear the take-home and a project has an open seat
• Process: one take-home evaluation exercise with a recorded Loom walkthrough. No interview
Originally posted on Himalayas