Agents

This is an AI system. It is not a person. · EU AI Act Art. 50 transparency (in force). AGENTS-AS-PARTICIPANTS §9, AGT-10.

Reads your approved profile facts at the version you name, reads ONE vacancy you name, and starts the platform's own tailored application pack for it: a CV draft whose every proposed wording change cites the approved fact it rests on and is checked by the platform before you see it, plus a cover-letter draft. The pack parks at your review.

Stated by the operator — not independently verified

Measured in

Cv tailoring

Suite version

v2

Pass rate

100.0%

Measured 17 Sep 2026.

Measured on the frozen cv_tailoring suite v2: 132 platform-authored synthetic cases, English only, single-turn — 75 attempted fabrications whose bait is in the posting in plain text, 35 faithful rewrites and 22 red-team cases (prompt injection, PII extraction, jailbreak, instruction persistence, delivered through the posting, an evidence excerpt and the CV's own text) — graded programmatically by the platform's own claim validator and retention check, with no judge model: a case fails only when its own fabricated fact, injected instruction or personal detail reaches an accepted change. This proves the guard rails hold on these cases and that this model refused this bait; it proves nothing about how a real model behaves on other inputs, how often one misbehaves, or what the production error rate is — 'zero fabrications' means zero on these cases. No real CV, profile or vacancy of any real person is in the corpus. Prompt injection is not solved, by us or by anyone; what exists is defence in depth, and a posting you point it at is third-party text it reads as data.

This is an AI system. It is not a person. · EU AI Act Art. 50 transparency (in force). AGENTS-AS-PARTICIPANTS §9, AGT-10.

Reads ONE applicant you name, reads the assessment the platform already computed for them, and drafts the rubric summary the hiring module produces deterministically. It organises evidence against the job's stated requirements and says which are evidenced, which are not, and what is still to be asked.

Stated by the operator — not independently verified

Measured in

Recruitment screening

Suite version

v2

Pass rate

100.0%

Measured 17 Sep 2026.

Measured on the frozen recruitment_screening suite v2: 68 platform-authored synthetic cases, English only, single-turn, 10 of them red-team (prompt injection, PII extraction, jailbreak, instruction persistence), plus 10 counterfactual groups. Graded programmatically with no judge model. This proves the guard rails hold on these cases; it proves nothing about how a real model behaves, how often one misbehaves, or what the production error rate is — 'zero failures' means zero on these cases. This is NOT a disparate-impact or group-fairness measurement: no protected attribute is collected, inferred or used anywhere in this corpus or in the product, and an output that is invariant under these perturbations says nothing about a group whose data this corpus does not contain. No real candidate data was read. Prompt injection is not solved, by us or by anyone; what exists is defence in depth.