Leetsoul Hiring
Hire from the real
situations of the role.
Build an assessment around the real situations of the role: your own scenario or case, or one of ours to start from. Invite candidates, then compare their decisions and writing.
For any role that involves people: sales, support, teaching, management and more. We set up your workspace with you; there is no self-serve checkout. Want shared practice for your current team instead? See Teams.
From the job’s real situations to a decision.
Step 1
Build it around the role
Write a scenario or a case file from the real situations of the job, or start from one of ours and edit your copy. Set a time limit and the criteria reviewers will rate.
Step 2
Invite candidates
Share one link or create a link for each person, with an expiry. Candidates read a plain notice and agree before a clock starts.
Step 3
Compare decisions and writing
See each candidate’s case decision beside the checks it was compared with, read their writing, and rate it against your criteria. Names can stay hidden until you decide.
Step 4
Decide as people
Advance, hold or decline, with a reason you write. Export what your reviewers entered, then close the role. Candidate data is deleted on the schedule you chose.
People decide. Rules you can read check the case.
Leetsoul Hiring shows what candidates decided and wrote. It does not guess who is best.
A case score from fixed checks
A case file asks the candidate to make a decision, such as placing each statement where the evidence supports it. Code compares that decision with an answer key that people wrote, and shows each check that was met or missed. You can sort by the result. It is a count of your own checks, not a prediction.
A rubric your reviewers apply
Each criterion has behavioral anchors for ratings 1 to 4. Reviewers rate the writing on their own, then see each other’s ratings. Compare candidates side by side, one criterion at a time.
No AI judging candidates
AI never scores, ranks, summarizes or rejects a candidate. Coaching and rehearsal are off during an assessment, and candidates are told so. Nothing is declined automatically; advance, hold and decline are always a person’s action.
Write your own, or start from ours.
Write a scenario with the people involved, the question and your own rubric. Or build a case file with cards of facts, an answer key and variants, so each candidate sees a different draw. Preview it as a candidate before you publish.
Starting from a Leetsoul practice copies it into a draft you can edit. Your versions are private to your workspace, and an assessment keeps the version it started with, so every candidate in a round gets the same content.
Starting rubrics for
- Sales
- Customer success
- Consulting
- Marketing
- People leadership
- Teaching
- Solutions engineering
- Operations
Each template is an editable starting point, not a standard.
What the research supports, and what it does not.
Job-related work samples and structured scoring are well-studied ideas in selection. That is general evidence about methods. It is not proof that these assessments predict performance in your company, so validate them for your roles.
- Sackett, Zhang, Berry and Lievens, Journal of Applied Psychology, 2022
Re-estimated the validity of selection methods with more cautious statistical corrections. In the version we read, structured interviews came first (about .42), then job knowledge tests (.40), with work samples at about .33 and general mental ability tests at about .31. Most work-sample studies behind the estimate were concurrent, which limits what it says about predicting later performance.
- Hausknecht, Day and Thomas, Personnel Psychology, 2004
A meta-analysis of how applicants react to selection methods. Interviews and work samples were rated more favorably than cognitive ability tests, personality tests and honesty tests.
- Levashina, Hartwell, Morgeson and Campion, Personnel Psychology, 2014
A review of research on structured interviews. It treats anchored rating scales as a component of structure that is thought to improve validity and reliability, and notes how much remains to be learned about designing them. It concerns interviews, not written work, so we apply the principle by analogy.
Written tasks can disadvantage people who write in a second language, and no method removes bias. We do not say these assessments are compliant or bias-free. Rules differ by place, so take legal advice before you use them.
Candidates know the terms before they start.
- A notice explains who sees what, how long it is kept and how it is read.
- They agree to a specific version of that notice before the clock starts.
- Their journal, coaching and other practice are never shared with you.
- They can withdraw, which deletes their submission.
- Candidate data is deleted automatically on the schedule you set, up to 365 days after the role closes.
Questions
Can candidates use AI tools on the written part?
We cannot prevent it or detect it reliably, and we do not claim to. Every candidate gets a fresh draw of a case, there is a time limit, and your reviewers read the writing. We suggest a short live conversation about the candidate’s own answer before any offer.
How do we get access, and what does it cost?
Contact us. We set up a workspace for your company and agree terms with you. Candidates never pay.
Is this a hiring recommendation?
No. Leetsoul gives you evidence from people’s own work and a place to record your reviewers’ judgments. The hiring decision is yours.
Tell us about the role
Which situations does your next hire need to handle well?
Tell us about the role and we will help you turn those situations into an assessment.
Talk to us about hiring Opens an email draft.