Why the Best Engineering Teams Stopped Screening Resumes

The most effective way to evaluate developer profiles at scale is to stop doing first-pass screening internally and use pre-vetted talent platforms that assess technical skills, integrity, and team fit before candidates ever reach your pipeline. Here's why the best engineering organizations have already made this shift — and what it means for how you hire.

You already know how to evaluate developers. That's not the problem.

If you're an engineering manager, you don't need someone to teach you how to read a developer profile. You know what depth looks like versus keyword stuffing. You know the difference between someone who's architected systems and someone who's described maintenance work in ambitious language. You've been doing this for years.

The problem isn't your ability to evaluate. It's the math. And it's the problem Torc was built to solve — not by teaching managers to screen better, but by removing screening from their plate entirely.

A single open role generates 80 to 150 applications. Even at five minutes per profile — and we both know the good ones take longer — you're looking at 10 to 15 hours of screening before you've scheduled a single interview. That's two full days of your week that aren't going toward sprint planning, architecture decisions, or the team that already needs you. According to SHRM, the average time to fill a software engineering role is 50 to 60 days. Much of that is eaten by screening, not interviewing.

And that's for one role.

Where screening actually breaks down

The hard part isn't identifying good engineers. It's doing it at volume without letting quality slip. Here's what typically happens around application 40: you start scanning faster, your criteria gets looser, and candidates who deserved a closer look get skipped because you're fatigued. Meanwhile, the three best people in the stack applied on day one and are already interviewing somewhere else.

Research from Lever's talent benchmarks shows that the average interview-to-hire ratio in software engineering is roughly 12 to 1 — meaning teams interview twelve candidates for every one they hire. That's not a quality problem. That's a filtering problem. The signal is there; it's buried under volume.

The screening techniques aren't the bottleneck. The bottleneck is that you're the one doing all of it.

The signals that actually matter (and the ones that don't)

Since we're not here to teach you the basics, let's talk about where we've seen evaluation go wrong — even among experienced engineering managers.

Overweighting years of experience. You already know tenure doesn't equal capability. But it still creeps into filtering, especially when you're moving fast. A developer with four years of focused, progressive experience in your stack is almost always a better bet than eight years of lateral movement across unrelated domains. LinkedIn's 2024 hiring data showed that skills-based hiring practices are 60 percent more likely to result in a successful placement than experience-based filtering alone.

Underweighting GitHub and open source contributions. This is the single most underused signal in profile evaluation. A candidate's commit history, PR review style, code structure, and how they interact with other contributors tells you more in ten minutes than their resume tells you in five. Look at what they build on their own time, how they document, whether they write tests, and how they respond to feedback on their code. If a developer has a meaningful open source presence, that should move them to the top of your stack before anything else.

Ignoring written communication signals. READMEs, blog posts, documentation contributions, Stack Overflow answers — these reveal how a developer thinks and explains, which matters enormously for remote and distributed teams. Most managers evaluate communication in the interview. The best ones screen for it before the interview ever happens.

Treating the resume as the profile. The resume is one artifact. The real profile is the combination of their GitHub, their portfolio, their community presence, their writing, and yes, their resume. Evaluating only the resume is evaluating maybe 30 percent of the picture.

Skipping career trajectory. Not just "did they get promoted" — did they seek out harder problems? Did they move toward the architecture and domain you care about? A developer whose trajectory is aimed at what you need is worth more than one who technically checks every box but has been drifting.

If you're building the hiring process, the math is worse than you think

Everything above describes what one engineering manager faces for one role. If you're leading talent acquisition or engineering at the org level, multiply it.

Five open roles means 50 to 75 hours of screening spread across your hiring managers — people whose actual job is building product, not reviewing applications. Every hour they spend filtering profiles is an hour your sprint velocity drops, your architecture decisions wait, and your existing team absorbs the slack. The drag on engineering output is real, even if it never shows up in your TA metrics.

And the TA team feels it from the other side. You're sourcing, coordinating, scheduling, and triaging — trying to get the right candidates in front of hiring managers who are already behind on their actual work. When an engineering manager rejects a slate because the candidates "looked good on paper but weren't deep enough," that's not a sourcing failure. It's a structural problem: resume-level screening can't reliably predict engineering depth, so the rejection cycle keeps repeating.

This is where the metrics start compounding against you. Time-to-fill stretches because hiring managers are too busy to review quickly. Interview-to-hire ratios stay high because first-pass filtering isn't catching the gaps that matter. Cost-per-hire climbs because you're running more interviews to land the same number of hires. The Society for Human Resource Management estimates the average cost per hire at over $4,700 — and for specialized engineering roles, that number can triple when you factor in lost productivity and extended vacancies. And when a placement doesn't work out in the first 90 days — because the evaluation missed a fit issue that only surfaces in real work — the entire cycle restarts.

The question isn't whether your team is working hard enough. It's whether the process is structured to let them work on the right things. Engineering managers should be spending their judgment on the final three candidates, not the first fifty. TA teams should be managing relationships and pipeline strategy, not coordinating a screening gauntlet that exhausts everyone involved.

What the best engineering teams are doing differently

The managers we work with who've solved this didn't get better at screening. They stopped doing it.

Not because they don't care about quality — the opposite. They realized that spending their judgment on interviewing the right three candidates is a dramatically better use of their expertise than spending it on finding those three candidates in a pile of 120.

This is where Torc fits. We're not a recruiting firm sending you resume packets. We're a talent platform where engineers are assessed before you ever see their profile — and not with generic coding puzzles.

When a role opens, assessments are generated from your actual job description. If you need a data engineer with PySpark and Snowflake experience, that's what gets tested — not abstract algorithm questions that don't reflect real work. AI grades each skill individually, so our matchers can see that a candidate is strong in Python but needs work in SQL, rather than just getting a blunt pass/fail score.

The integrity layer goes beyond proctoring. We're tracking geolocation, capturing screenshots throughout the session, recording video of the candidate working, detecting VPNs and virtual backgrounds, and flagging AI-assisted cheating tools. 42 separate integrity checks run on every assessment. Override privileges are locked behind super admin access — because when we loosened that, people started clearing flags they shouldn't have.

Results flow directly into each engineer's Torc profile. When our matchers evaluate a candidate for your role, the skill-level scores are already there. When you review a shortlist, you can see the assessment breakdown without logging into a separate system. And because we store results at the skill level, engineers who've already proven themselves in Python don't have to retest on Python for your role — they get a micro-assessment on the specific gaps, which means faster turnaround and less assessment fatigue for the best talent in the community.

The engineers see their own results too. Full transparency — they can review scores, ask questions, or dispute results. That matters because the best engineers won't stay in a community that treats assessment like a black box.

This is why our trial success rate is 99.3% and our average time from intake to hire is 7.6 days. It's not magic. It's pre-work.

What you're screening for today vs. what's already done when you work with Torc

What changes when screening isn't anyone's bottleneck

When pre-vetted talent replaces first-pass screening, the shift isn't just faster hiring. The entire operating model around hiring changes.

For engineering managers, interviews become strategic conversations. You stop asking "can you code" and start asking about architecture tradeoffs, how they'd approach your specific scaling challenges, whether they'd push back on a technical decision they disagreed with. You're evaluating judgment and team fit — the things that actually predict whether someone will succeed in your environment. That's the work only you can do, and it's the work you haven't had time for because you've been buried in profile review.

For TA teams, the coordination burden drops dramatically. Instead of sourcing 150 candidates, screening them down to 20, sending slates that get half-rejected, and restarting the cycle — you're presenting 3 to 5 pre-assessed engineers who've already cleared the technical and integrity bar. Hiring manager rejection rates drop because the gap between "looks good on paper" and "actually qualified" has already been closed. Your time shifts from screening logistics to pipeline strategy, hiring manager alignment, and onboarding — the work that actually moves the needle on retention.

For the organization, the metrics move in ways that compound. Interview-to-hire ratios tighten because you're not burning cycles on candidates who can't do the work. Time-to-fill shrinks — not by cutting corners, but by removing the weeks your hiring managers spend buried in applications before they even start interviewing. Cost-per-hire drops as a byproduct, not a goal, because fewer interviews and fewer mis-hires mean less wasted effort at every stage. And early attrition falls when the matching accounts for team dynamics and working style, not just technical checkboxes — which is what a 99.3% trial success rate actually represents.

The compounding effect is the part most teams underestimate. One faster hire means one fewer week of an understaffed team absorbing extra work. Multiply that across five or ten open roles and you're not just saving screening hours — you're protecting the productivity and morale of the engineers who are already there. The cost of a slow hiring process isn't just the vacancy. It's the quiet erosion of the team waiting for it to be filled.

The bottom line

You don't need a framework for evaluating developer profiles. You need to stop being the person who evaluates 100 of them for every hire.

Randstad Digital, powered by Torc, exists for exactly this — pre-vetted engineers matched to your team, ready for the conversations that actually matter. Not resume blasting. Not offshore arbitrage. Precision matching backed by a talent community that's built for long-term partnerships.

Ready to reclaim your interview time? Explore how Randstad Digital powered by Torc's pre-vetted talent community can transform your hiring process. Compare pricing and get started with candidates who are already interview-ready.

Frequently Asked Questions

How long does it take to screen developer profiles for one open role? Most engineering managers spend 10 to 15 hours reviewing 80 to 150 applications before scheduling a single interview. When factoring in coordination with talent acquisition teams, calendar logistics, and slate rejections, the total time investment per role often exceeds 20 hours across the hiring team.

What should you look for when evaluating a developer's GitHub profile? The most revealing signals are commit frequency and consistency, pull request review style, code structure and documentation quality, test coverage practices, and how the developer responds to feedback on their code. A meaningful open source presence — especially contributions to projects beyond their own — is one of the strongest indicators of engineering depth and collaboration ability.

What is a pre-vetted talent platform? A pre-vetted talent platform is a hiring model where engineers are technically assessed, integrity-verified, and skill-matched before being presented to hiring teams. Unlike traditional recruiting, which forwards resumes for the client to screen, a pre-vetted platform eliminates first-pass screening entirely by validating technical capability, communication skills, and team fit before a candidate reaches the client's pipeline.

How does Torc's assessment process work? Torc generates assessments directly from the client's job description, testing the specific technologies and skills the role requires rather than using generic coding challenges. AI grades each assessment at the individual skill level, and 42 integrity checks — including geolocation tracking, screenshot capture, video proctoring, VPN detection, and AI-assisted cheating tool detection — run on every test. Results are stored in each engineer's Torc profile and carry forward, so previously validated skills don't need to be retested for future roles.

What is a good interview-to-hire ratio for software engineering roles? Industry benchmarks suggest the average interview-to-hire ratio in software engineering is approximately 12 to 1. Teams using pre-vetted talent platforms like Torc typically interview 3 to 5 candidates per hire, because technical qualification and integrity verification have already been completed before the interview stage.

What is the difference between pre-vetted talent and traditional staffing? Traditional staffing relies on resume sourcing, keyword matching, and client-side screening to filter candidates. Pre-vetted talent platforms like Torc assess engineers before demand exists — through technical evaluations, skill-level scoring, communication checks, and integrity verification — so that when a role opens, matched candidates are already qualified and ready for strategic interviews rather than competency screening.

See all frequently asked questions