Skills assessment for product teams
Test how product people think, not how they present.
A situational judgment test for product roles. You say what the role cannot do without; they answer twelve situations in about fifteen minutes, and you get a report that tells you whether to interview them — and what to ask.
- First one free, no card
- Same rubric for everyone
- They keep their report
How it works
Three steps.
No calls, no setup.
What must they be good at?
- Spot when the brief is wrong
- Knows what the data supports
- Moves without being told
- Sweats states and edge cases
How it works
One candidate. Two jobs. Two answers.
Marta R. answered once. Change who is hiring and watch the recommendation change — same person, same answers, different call. This is the real scoring engine, running here.
Marta R. is a constructed profile, not a real person — but the arithmetic below is the same code a paying customer gets.
Marta R.
Close to your job
Leads with all 3 of the things you named
What this role called essential
- Spots when the brief is wrongnear the front
- Knows what is cheap to buildfurther back
The mark is the middle of the scale.
Ask them to name something they wanted to build and dropped because of what it would cost.
The same twelve situations exist for six roles, and what they measure changes with the job. If you want the reasoning before the product, the guides are where we write down how to read any of this — including what to look for without a test at all.
Why now
AI broke the portfolio
A portfolio always showed the outcome and never the judgment. It never separated your work from your team's, and never said what happened when the plan broke halfway. Now a model writes one in four minutes.
67%
of hiring leaders say AI-generated applications have slowed their process down.
65%
can no longer verify whether the skills they see on an application are real.
Source: Robert Half, March 2026
Engineering solved this years ago: there is a technical interview, a standard exercise, a way to compare. For product roles, nothing existed. That is what we built.
Pricing
Your first candidate is free
No card, no call. Credit packs that never expire — try it on the role you have open right now.
Free
your first candidate
One assessment, scored and reported. No card and no call — the same report a paying customer receives.
Start free$89
starter pack · 5 candidates
Enough to see it work on people you know. Credits never expire, and one is only spent when a candidate starts.
Buy credits$290Save 19%
one role · 20 candidates
A whole hire, start to finish. Same report, same instrument — you are buying more of it, not a better version.
Buy credits$690Save 35%
several roles · 60 candidates
Three or four hires whenever they come up, or an agency running more than one process at a time.
Buy creditsNo subscription, and nothing expires. You buy a hire, not a year of software. How teams use it differs: a first design hire, an agency running several clients and a recruiter shortlisting each buy a different amount of the same thing.
Candidates never pay. Not for the case, not for their profile.
What people ask us
The six objections, answered
Then you already know its three problems. It is not comparable — one candidate spends two hours and another spends the weekend, so you end up ranking availability. It loses your best people, because anyone with three live processes turns down a weekend of unpaid work. And it has no outside reference: you learn which one you preferred, not whether either is any good. This takes fifteen minutes of theirs and none of your design lead's.
It measures one thing, on purpose. Not craft, not tooling, not how they present — judgment. Twelve situations where every option is something a sensible professional might do, and what informs the profile is which action they reach for first and which they rule out. Ruling something out is the part a portfolio never shows you. If you want to see their craft, look at their work; that is what a portfolio is genuinely good for.
It buys them very little here. There is no essay to generate and no artefact to polish — every option is already written and defensible, so a model has nothing to improve on. What it cannot do is know which of four reasonable actions this particular person would take first. And we flag the patterns that show someone answered without reading: the same position chosen over and over, or the whole thing done faster than it can be read. Those results are withheld and your credit comes back.
No, and that is deliberate: an exam you can prepare for stops measuring anything. What is public is everything that matters for trusting it — the six capabilities that belong to each role, the four style scales, that the weights are yours rather than ours, and that no option is the correct one. You know what is measured. Nobody gets to rehearse how it is asked.
There is no person in the loop and no language model in the scoring path. The same twelve situations, the same arithmetic, every time — which is why the report appears the second a candidate finishes. What changes between two companies is not the scoring, it is the weighting: you say which capabilities this role cannot do without, and the same candidate reads differently for a different brief. That is the honest kind of subjective, and it is yours.
Fifteen minutes is not a test, it is a questionnaire. They are told before they start that there are no right answers, that the company in the situations is fictional so nobody is working for free, and that we measure how they decide rather than how they present. And it is once, not once per company: if another company asks for the same assessment in the next six months, they do not sit it again.
Then that hire matters more to you than to anyone, and getting it wrong costs a full salary and half a year. Your first candidate is free, with no card. Use it on the process you have open right now.
You have an open role right now.
Invite one candidate and read their report the moment they finish.