What signals do you look for when hiring?

I mostly look for side projects on github and past experience.

A verifiable track record that is very hard to fake.

This includes:

1. Open source contributions to high-profile / major repositories (with code-review in the open with core maintainers).

2. Side projects that are production-grade with customers and recurring revenue.

3. Given presentations at conferences.

At least 2 out of 3 of those. Years of experience is a additional plus.

But those still using keyword matching, ATS scores, leetcode don't have a clue on how to hire or who to hire as all of that can be faked, gamed and cheated by LLMs in 2026.

Instead of hiring builders, they continue to optimize for people studying for interviews and at the end of the day, I only care if you know how to make money and I prefer the former.

A CV that tells me what you did, and what benefit it had to your employer.

I'm only impressed by side projects if they had users and/or MRR - something serious that proves you worked on it long enough to have something to show for your efforts

At the same time I wouldn't skip a candidate for not having a portfolio - a full time job is enough

>That’s why more people are showcasing their work through portfolios. And that’s what recruiters actually look for.

Not sure where this assumption is coming from. Most recruiters are looking for consistent work experience with reputable companies. Sure portfolios help but it's not even remotely on the same spectrum.

>I dont know how people are coming up with such juicy and vanity metrics but mostly are noise.

It's really not noise at all. If you actually use these ATS platforms from the hiring side, you'll see first hand how they've all doubled down on AI filtering. Candidates are directly experiencing increased difficulty in getting past the initial screening stages.

The willingness to learn and grow is a big one for me. You always have to learn even when highly experienced but starting in a new position or industry. Additionally, critical thinking and problem solving skills along with perseverance makes a strong candidate in my eyes.

These traits show me someone is worth investing in, not just able to do a job. You'd be surprised how rare the combination is too.

I like people who are enthusiastic about tech. It is pretty easy to tell when you have 60 minutes with them.

We're here to build stuff and improve continuously and if someone can't do that or seems to be the type of person who needs hand holding (they don't seem like they can even attempt to think on their own) then its not a good fit.

I think the problem recently is that SWE became way too easy. It is the easiest job right now if you can grind out a couple months you can make 400k plus easily. If you can't or find a way to make excuses about why you can't yngmi and I'm not interested in speaking with you.

But if you agree with that sentiment, then you know the game is rigged and gamed. So it is now important to sniff out the fakers. So many people can memorize LC, and then you throw a small twist and their brain which they've turned into a nvme drive to memorize and fast lookup shit crashes because their brain is basically a dual core and 4gb ram with a ton of storage of shit.

I'd rather take the person who's got a workstation and can do shit, instead of the person who maxxed out storage.