AI Interaction Evaluator

### **Senior AI Interaction Evaluator (Codex / Claude Code)** **Contract | $50-200/hr | 10+ hrs/week | Project-based** _**Roles open on a rolling basis** - apply to join the talent bench and we’ll reach out when one matches. Expect 40+ hrs once a project starts; timing depends on availability, but we move people in at the earliest genuine opportunity._ These roles are currently filled but we hire on a rolling basis as new projects open up. Apply now to join our talent bench — qualified candidates will be contacted directly when roles become available. [Check out this Loom video for more details!](https://www.loom.com/share/b0d1b0bf24c44ae8b95dca84b9db60e5) We’re looking for **highly experienced software engineer (SR+)** to help evaluate the quality of interactions with modern coding agents such as OpenAI Codex and Claude Code. This is not a traditional engineering role. ### You won’t be writing production code. You’ll be evaluating something harder: **whether the model** _**thinks**_ **like a great engineer.** ### **What This Role Actually Is** You will assess how AI coding agents behave in real-world scenarios — focusing on: * Whether the **response makes sense** * Whether the **preamble and reasoning are useful** * Whether the **output reflects strong engineering judgment** * Whether the **interaction feels right to an experienced developer** This role is about **engineering taste** — not syntax correctness. ### **What You’ll Be Doing** * Evaluate AI-generated coding interactions end-to-end * ### Judge whether outputs are: * ### Useful * ### Correct (at a high level) * Aligned with how a strong engineer would think * Assess the **quality of explanations and reasoning**, not just code * Distinguish between different levels of response quality (e.g. what makes something a _2 vs 4_) * ### Provide clear, opinionated feedback on: * ### What worked * ### What didn’t * ### What felt “off” or misleading * Help define what _great_ looks like when interacting with tools like Cursor ### **What We Mean by “Taste”** We’re specifically looking for engineers who can answer questions like: * _Does this feel like something a strong engineer would actually say?_ * _Is this explanation helpful, or just technically correct?_ * _Is the model guiding the user well, or just dumping output?_ * _Would this interaction build or erode trust?_ You should be comfortable making **subjective but rigorous judgments**. ### **Who You Are** * Staff / Principal-level engineer (or equivalent experience) * ### Strong background in one of the below: * ### TypeScript / JavaScript * ### Python * ### Hands-on experience using: * ### OpenAI Codex * ### Claude Code * ### Cursor * Deep familiarity with modern AI-assisted dev workflows * Able to evaluate code **without needing to fully execute or deeply review every line** * Comfortable giving **direct, opinionated feedback** * High bar for what “good engineering” looks like ### **Nice to Have** * Experience with tools like Cursor or similar AI-first IDEs * Prior exposure to prompt design or evaluation workflows * Experience mentoring senior engineers or defining engineering standards ### **Engagement Details** * ### US and Canada up to $200/hr * ### EU and Latam up to $150/hr * ### Other locations up to $100/hr * **Hours:** ~10–20 hours/week * **Duration:** Ongoing — project-based * ### Process: * ### Take-home evaluation exercise * ### One behavioral interview Originally posted on [Himalayas](https://himalayas.app)