OnSkillDemand

We built OnSkillDemand because too many interview decisions still depend on scattered notes and gut feeling. Our goal is to make every stage structured and evidence-based while keeping people responsible for each evaluation and the final decision. We’d love feedback from recruiters, hiring managers, and technical interviewers: what part of your current interview workflow is hardest to keep consistent?

Keeping AI on prep and leaving every score to a person is the right split. How long do candidate notes and evidence stay in a workspace after a vacancy closes? Teams hiring in the EU usually need a retention window plus a way to delete one candidate's data on request, so a per-candidate delete or a retention setting would make this easier to adopt.

Tying every score back to a role requirement should make debiasing interviews much easier, since the evidence sits right next to the rating instead of in someone's head. Auditable PDF reports are a nice touch for compliance-heavy teams — I'd be curious how it handles panel interviews where several interviewers score the same candidate independently.

Keeping editable AI-generated questions separate from human scoring is a useful distinction. How do you version the rubric when a role's requirements change mid-process? Preserving the exact question and scoring guidance used for each interview in the exported report would help teams compare candidates fairly.

Structured interviews are one of the most reliable predictors of job performance, so centralizing the process in one tool makes a lot of sense. I would love to see how the scoring rubrics handle calibration across multiple interviewers — that is typically where bias creeps back in even with a structured format.

Structured interviews are underrated — most small companies still hire on gut feeling. How do you handle roles where the hiring manager isn't technical: do you suggest the questions and scoring criteria, or does the company have to define them?

Great tool for marketers and creators. How does Layerre handle custom font rendering and layout constraints when automating dynamic text variations from external APIs?

Auditable PDF reports are a nice touch for compliance-heavy teams — I'd be curious how it handles panel interviews where several interviewers score the same candidate independently.

Auditable PDF reports are especially useful for teams with strict compliance requirements. I’d be interested to know how it manages panel interviews when multiple interviewers evaluate the same candidate independently.

This is genuinely useful for founders submitting their products to directories. One thing I'd love to see is a clear distinction between free dofollow backlinks, nofollow links, and listings that require a badge. Do you verify these details directly from published listings?

Keeping every score tied to a role requirement with the evidence right beside it feels like a real fix for gut feel hiring. Do the shareable reports show which interviewer added each piece of evidence?

Keeping notes, evidence and scores in one place per vacancy is a sensible approach. How are scores kept consistent across interviewers, for example is there a shared rubric per question that each interviewer fills in separately before the comparison view is shown?

This is great app.. nice one

i love this . it looks so nice i will try it out

The PDF export is the part I'd test first. When someone questions a hire months later, that report is usually the only thing people open. Does it show which interviewer gave each score and when, or only the totals per candidate?