Makes a 3 mean the same thing to every interviewer
Unstructured interviews predict job performance poorly, and companies keep running them because building a structured process is tedious. This agent does the tedious part.
Before the interview it produces a guide: questions that actually probe each requirement, what a strong and a weak answer look like, and follow-ups for when an answer is thin. Every level of the scale is anchored in observable behaviour, so a 3 means the same thing to two different interviewers.
Afterwards it scores the notes the interviewer wrote against those anchors, citing the note behind each score. It assesses what was written down, never the candidate — no voice, no video, no inference about the person. And it never recommends hiring: it produces a comparable record, and the decision stays where it belongs.
The same questions and the same bar, so scores can actually be compared.
A structured guide without the afternoon it usually costs.
Scores anchored and evidenced, months after the conversation.
Each one traces to a criterion, so the interview covers what the role needs.
Every level described in observable behaviour, so scores mean the same thing across interviewers.
What to ask when an answer is thin, so a weak response is probed not penalised.
Works from what the interviewer wrote. No audio, no video, no inference about the candidate.
Where two interviewers scored the same criterion differently, that gap is shown — it is signal, not noise.
It produces a comparable record. Hiring is a human decision.
This agent runs server-side through the PROMIVO runtime. Each run is logged step by step and every tool call is permission-checked before it executes.
Demo dataIllustrative sample output, abridged.
{
"mode": "build-guide",
"roleTitle": "Support Lead",
"requirements": [
"De-escalates angry customers"
]
}{
"guide": [
{
"anchors": [
{
"score": 1,
"observableBehaviour": "Describes the customer as the problem; no action they took themselves."
},
{
"score": 3,
"observableBehaviour": "Describes acknowledging the issue and offering a concrete next step."
},
{
"score": 5,
"observableBehaviour": "Describes separating the complaint from the emotion, naming what went wrong, and following up afterwards."
}
],
"question": "Tell me about a time a customer was angry with your team and you took over the conversation. What did you do first?",
"followUps": [
"What did you say in the first thirty seconds?",
"What did you decide not to say?"
],
"requirement": "De-escalates angry customers"
}
],
"disclaimer": "A structured guide and scoring record for human decision-making. This agent does not recommend hiring."
}No integrations required.
Give every interviewer the same guide and the same anchors.
Turn scrappy notes into a scored, comparable record.
See exactly where interviewers disagreed and on what.
$149/month
Billed monthly through your PROMIVO subscription. Cancel at any time.
Runs consume your plan allowance for agent executions and tokens. See plan limits.
No. It works only from notes a person wrote. Assessing candidates from voice or video invites inference about characteristics that have no place in hiring, and is regulated in several jurisdictions.
No. It scores against anchors and shows where interviewers disagreed. The decision is the panel's, and the agent says so in every output.
It marks the criterion insufficiently evidenced rather than scoring low. A criterion nobody probed is not a criterion the candidate failed.
No reviews yet. Reviews open once customers have run this agent.
Tell us what to change and our team will scope a customised version for your business.
Customize this agent