Analyzes interview recordings (video or audio) against your competency matrix. Generates detailed candidate evaluation in 2 minutes. Stop watching hour-long interviews.
Book AI AuditPretty much every company has the same hiring workflow.
Recruiter does initial screening call — 30 to 60 minutes. Asks about background, skills, experience. Records it or takes notes.
Then recruiter writes up their impression: "Candidate seems good. Strong Python skills. Nice communication." Passes to hiring manager.
Hiring manager gets this summary, maybe watches the recording if they have time (they usually don't). Makes a decision: advance to next round or pass.
But here's what's missing: systematic evaluation against your actual requirements.
Recruiter is making judgment calls. "Strong Python skills" — compared to what? Did they assess all the competencies from your matrix? Or just the ones they remembered to ask about?
And if hiring manager watches the recording, they're sitting through 45 minutes of conversation to extract 5 minutes of relevant signal.
Result:
Inconsistent screening. Great candidates rejected because recruiter missed asking the right questions. Weak candidates advancing because they said buzzwords that sounded good.
Hiring manager has to either trust recruiter's gut or spend hours reviewing recordings. Neither scales well.
Here's the thing — this agent works in tandem with the Competency Matrix Agent. You need the matrix first. Then this agent evaluates candidates against it.
You load the competency matrix you created (using the Competency Matrix Agent or manually).
System now knows exactly what to look for:
This is your evaluation rubric.
Upload the interview recording — video or audio, doesn't matter.
This is typically the recruiter's screening call. 30-60 minutes. Could be Zoom recording, phone call recording, whatever you have.
Agent transcribes the entire conversation. Then analyzes it.
If it's video, agent can also analyze:
But the main work is analyzing what was said.
Agent goes through your competency matrix item by item:
Python Programming (Critical requirement) ├─ Transcript moments where discussed: [timestamps] ├─ What candidate said: [relevant quotes] ├─ Assessment: "Candidate mentioned 5 years of Python experience, discussed Django framework usage, provided specific examples of optimization work" └─ Rating: Above acceptable ✓ Communication Skills (High importance) ├─ Transcript moments: [timestamps] ├─ What candidate said: [quotes] ├─ Assessment: "Clear articulation of technical concepts, provided context without prompting, answered questions directly" └─ Rating: Above acceptable ✓ DevOps/Docker (Medium importance) ├─ Transcript moments: [timestamps] ├─ What candidate said: [quotes] ├─ Assessment: "Mentioned basic Docker usage but couldn't discuss orchestration or CI/CD implementation" └─ Rating: Acceptable ⚠️
For every skill in your matrix, agent finds the relevant parts of the interview and evaluates.
Agent flags what the recruiter didn't ask about:
"Warning: Critical requirement 'Database design skills' was not discussed in interview. Cannot evaluate."
So you know what's missing. Can ask in next round or reject candidate if it's critical.
Agent generates summary score:
Critical requirements: 3/3 met ✓ High importance: 4/5 met (1 not discussed) Medium importance: 2/3 met Low importance: Not evaluated Overall: Strong candidate, recommend advancing to technical interview
Objective evaluation based on your criteria, not recruiter's gut feel.
Full report generated in 1-2 minutes:
Hiring manager reads the report (5 minutes) instead of watching 45-minute recording.
Recruiter watches 45-minute interview, writes subjective summary. Hiring manager either trusts it or watches recording themselves. Inconsistent evaluation. No systematic comparison between candidates.
Honestly — give it to your recruiters, not just hiring managers.
Recruiter uploads their own screening call recording. Gets immediate feedback:
Now recruiter knows if they got enough signal to make a decision, or if they need to do a follow-up call.
Quality of screening goes up. Fewer bad candidates make it to hiring manager's time.
Tech company hiring engineers. Hiring manager was spending 10+ hours per week reviewing recruiter screening calls.
We implemented Interview Analysis Agent:
Recruiter conducts screening (same as before). Uploads recording. Agent generates report in 90 seconds.
Hiring manager reviews reports (5 minutes each) instead of watching 45-minute recordings.
Result:
Bonus: Recruiter got better at interviewing because they got instant feedback on what they missed.
For the agent to work, we need:
As long as you have interview recordings and a competency matrix — we can build this.
Look, interview analysis agent isn't magic. It's systematic evaluation of what candidates actually said, mapped against what you actually need.
Difference: hiring manager saves hours per week. Recruiter gets instant feedback on screening quality. Candidates are evaluated consistently.
And honestly — give this to your recruiters first. They'll screen better, which means less wasted time for everyone.
Let's look at your hiring process. Maybe your screening is already super consistent. Maybe hiring managers are drowning in interview recordings. Either way — worth a conversation.
Book $300 AI Audit
Want to see what's possible first?
Get our Free Guide
