Python Engineer, AI Coding Agent Evaluator
This is the employer's own posting, not a copy on a job board.
What we know
Is it still open?
Confirmed still open
Last checked 2d ago — checked against the employer's own applicant tracking system, which is the company answering directly.
We re-read the employer's own applicant tracking system and the posting was still there. That is the company answering directly.
How old is it?
Posted 5d ago
The date the source published, not the day we noticed it (2026-09-09). Last seen at its source 1h ago.
Is it remote?
Marked remote on the employer's board
Their board carries a remote setting on this posting — a field they filled in, not wording we read. The location field names somewhere specific, which is usually where the team or the entity sits.
Who may apply?
United States
The description states no restriction of its own. This is the source's own tag.
Pay not stated
Similar roles pay $160k–225k/yr
Middle 50% of 2161 listings that do state pay — Engineering · all levels · United States · USD/year. This employer has published no salary; this is what comparable listings we hold disclose, never converted between currencies or periods. How this is calculated.
Skills named in the ad
Recognised terms only, from a fixed vocabulary — this is what CV matching compares against.
Carried by 1 source
-
ashby employer's own board first seen 5d ago · last seen 1h ago
The listing
Senior AI Interaction Evaluator (Codex / Claude Code)
Contract | $100–$200/hour | 10–20 hrs/week | Start ASAP (through early May)
Check out this Loom video for more details!
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
Rate: $100–$200/hour
Hours: ~10–20 hours/week
Duration: Through early May (with possible extension)
Start: ASAP
Process:
Take-home evaluation exercise
One behavioral interview