Increase recruiter capacity
Applications went up. Your team didn’t.
Application volume has doubled and recruiting headcount has not. Alex, the AI recruiter takes the work that scales with volume, sourcing, reviewing, interviewing, scheduling, replying, so your recruiters spend their hours on calibration and closing.
Request demoGreenhouse, on AI in recruitment. Their summary of the same data: more applications, fewer recruiters, slower hiring.
Backend Engineer
312 applications · one recruiter
all reviewed
Alex, overnight
Read against the role criteria
312 of 312
Interviewed
41 · 9 out of hours
Answered, either way
everyone
On the recruiter’s desk this morning
Three to call, not three hundred to read
You decide
Where the hours go
Recruiters are not short of skill. They are short of hours.
Almost none of a recruiter’s week is the work you hired them for. It is triage, chasing and coordination, and all of it grows with volume while judgment does not.
Reading a pile nobody can finish
When a role pulls three hundred applications, the honest outcome is that most are never properly read. The first fifty get attention and the rest get a filter.
Chasing instead of talking
Outreach, follow-ups, reminders and rescheduling. Necessary, endless, and none of it needs a recruiter’s judgment.
First interviews that repeat
The same opening questions, thirty times a week, in whatever order calendars allowed.
The replies that never get sent
Rejections are the first thing to go when the week runs out, which is exactly the part candidates remember and tell people about.
The problem
More volume did not buy you more signal.
Applications got cheap to send.
A candidate who once wrote ten applications can now submit hundreds, each one polished by the same few models. The pile grew; the signal in it did not.
Filters throw away good people.
Keyword screening is the only thing fast enough to cope, and it rejects on phrasing rather than capability. The best candidate may simply have described it differently.
Adding recruiters is the expensive answer.
Headcount scales linearly with volume and takes months to become productive. Most TA teams are asked to absorb the growth instead.
An application nobody had time to read is a candidate you never really considered.
How it works
Alex runs the volume. Your recruiters run the decisions.
Everything Alex does is measured against the approved role standard, so consistency improves as volume rises rather than degrading. The recruiter gets a shortlist that already shows its reasoning.
One approved role standard, used at every step
The agent
Alex, the AI Recruiter
Sources on capability fit, writes the outreach, reads every application against the criteria, and interviews around the clock in 19 languages.
Meet Alex →
The workflow
Hiring
Sourcing, review, interviews and evidence connected in one pipeline, so nothing is stitched together and nothing falls through it.
How hiring works →
The foundation
AI-native Job Architecture
The criteria Alex screens and interviews against, approved by you, and identical to the ones your own people are measured on.
How job architecture works →
Alex runs
Sources→ Engages→ Reviews→ InterviewsYou decide who progresses
Point Alex at your worst pile.
Pick the role with the most applications and the least recruiter time. See the shortlist and the reasoning behind it.
Proof
One team, three times the roles.
ROHLÍK GROUP
3×
Recruiter capacity tripled. Application review and interviews run autonomously, while every decision stays with the team.
19
languages Alex interviews in
40+
ATS integrations, so Alex runs inside your workflow
Where the line sits
What Talentpilot does not do.
Capacity is worth nothing if you cannot defend how a candidate was treated. The boundaries are the point, not the small print.
It does not decide who gets hired
Alex assembles comparable evidence and prepares the shortlist. Recruiters and hiring managers make every call on who progresses.
It does not screen on anything but the criteria
Candidates are assessed against the approved role standard. Nothing is inferred from a name, a school or a photograph.
It does not hide that it is AI
Alex introduces itself as an AI interviewer. Candidates know who they are talking to, and get an answer either way.
Enterprise control & governance
Automate the volume, not the judgment.
One rubric for everyone
Every candidate is assessed against the same approved criteria, so consistency holds whether a role draws thirty applications or three hundred.
Human decisions, on the record
Who progressed, and on what evidence, stays auditable. The final call is always a person’s.
Built for the EU AI Act
Evidence you can inspect and explain, which is what a regulated hiring process needs rather than a score nobody can account for.
Frequently asked questions
Does Alex make the hiring decision?
No. Alex sources, reviews, interviews and assembles comparable evidence. Recruiters and hiring managers decide who progresses and who is hired. That is a design choice, not a limitation: it keeps humans accountable and keeps you on the right side of AI regulation in the markets you hire in.
What exactly comes off a recruiter’s plate?
The work that scales with volume rather than with judgment: searching, first outreach and follow-ups, reading every application against the role criteria, running first interviews, scheduling, and writing the rejections. What stays is the part only a person does well, calibrating with the hiring manager, selling the role, and closing.
Will candidates notice they are talking to AI?
Yes, and they are told. Alex introduces itself as an AI interviewer. The trade a candidate gets is a real conversation at a time that suits them and an answer either way, rather than silence from an inbox nobody had time to read.
Does it work with our ATS?
Almost certainly. Talentpilot connects to 40+ ATS and 20+ HCM systems, including Greenhouse, Ashby, Lever and Workday, so Alex runs inside the workflow your team already uses rather than beside it.
Does more capacity mean lower quality?
The opposite is the argument. Every applicant is read against the same approved role criteria instead of the first hundred getting attention and the rest getting none, and interviews follow one structured rubric rather than varying by whoever ran them.
