Post
3473
Update: Making My AI Recruiting Assistant More Deterministic, Auditable, and Bias-Aware
Hi everyone — I wanted to share a progress update on my AI recruiting assistant and some recent changes focused on reliability and transparency.
The goal of this project is to build a decision-support tool for recruiters that doesn’t just “sound confident,” but can actually explain why it produces a given recommendation.
Link: 19arjun89/AI_Recruiting_Agent
Over the last few iterations, I’ve focused on three areas:
1) Deterministic Verification of Job Requirements (Skills)
Previously, required skills were extracted by an LLM from the job description. While this worked well, it still relied heavily on model behavior.
I’ve now added a verification layer that:
Requires every “required” skill to be backed by a verbatim quote from the job description
This means hallucinated skills are explicitly detected and removed before scoring.
The system now shows:
What the model extracted
What was verified
What was dropped
Why it was dropped
This makes the requirements pipeline auditable instead of opaque.
2) Evidence-Based and Weighted Culture Verification
Culture matching is usually where AI systems become vague or subjective.
I’ve reworked this part so that:
Culture attributes are framed as observable, job-performance-related behaviors (e.g., audit readiness, operational reliability, security rigor)
Each matched attribute must include verbatim resume evidence
Matches are classified as:
Direct evidence (full weight)
Inferred evidence (partial weight)
Scoring is now weighted:
Direct = 1.0
Inferred = 0.5
This prevents “vibe-based” culture scoring and makes the math transparent.
The output now shows:
The weights used
Which attributes were supported directly vs inferred
Which attributes were missing
3) Improved Bias Audit Prompt
I’ve also upgraded the bias audit prompt to be more structured and actionable.
Hi everyone — I wanted to share a progress update on my AI recruiting assistant and some recent changes focused on reliability and transparency.
The goal of this project is to build a decision-support tool for recruiters that doesn’t just “sound confident,” but can actually explain why it produces a given recommendation.
Link: 19arjun89/AI_Recruiting_Agent
Over the last few iterations, I’ve focused on three areas:
1) Deterministic Verification of Job Requirements (Skills)
Previously, required skills were extracted by an LLM from the job description. While this worked well, it still relied heavily on model behavior.
I’ve now added a verification layer that:
Requires every “required” skill to be backed by a verbatim quote from the job description
This means hallucinated skills are explicitly detected and removed before scoring.
The system now shows:
What the model extracted
What was verified
What was dropped
Why it was dropped
This makes the requirements pipeline auditable instead of opaque.
2) Evidence-Based and Weighted Culture Verification
Culture matching is usually where AI systems become vague or subjective.
I’ve reworked this part so that:
Culture attributes are framed as observable, job-performance-related behaviors (e.g., audit readiness, operational reliability, security rigor)
Each matched attribute must include verbatim resume evidence
Matches are classified as:
Direct evidence (full weight)
Inferred evidence (partial weight)
Scoring is now weighted:
Direct = 1.0
Inferred = 0.5
This prevents “vibe-based” culture scoring and makes the math transparent.
The output now shows:
The weights used
Which attributes were supported directly vs inferred
Which attributes were missing
3) Improved Bias Audit Prompt
I’ve also upgraded the bias audit prompt to be more structured and actionable.