afka uses analytics cookies to see how visitors use the site, and a service that can identify the company a visitor works for. We do not sell your data. Decline and none of it loads.
It finds the real candidates in the AI-written flood.
A deep agent for hiring that fixes what AI broke: it separates real candidates from the AI-written flood, verifies each one is a real, consistent human, and gives every score a reason, while a human signs every reject and every offer, by design.
@afka forty-one applied to the backend role overnight. Anything real in there?
Four are. I scored all 41 against your profile, flagged 26 as AI-templated with the giveaway evidence, and caught 2 duplicate identities. Nothing is rejected, and nothing will be without you, the four come with quotes from their own resumes.
Built for the reality that AI broke hiring.
Everyone sells sourcing and screening faster, and speed is now free. What is scarce is a real candidate, and a decision you can defend.
It works overnight to flag AI-written and duplicate applications with the evidence, so you wake up to the few candidates actually worth your minute, not 41 look-alikes.
Reject, screen-out and offer are never finalized by the agent, at any autonomy level. A human signs every candidate-impacting decision. Compliance is the design, not a setting.
Sourcing, screening, and onboarding and engagement work as one deep agent on a shared talent graph, so retention outcomes recalibrate how the next role is sourced and screened.
Four jobs, three coordinated agents.
All of it runs in the ATS and the inbox you already have, on one shared record per candidate.
Separates real candidates from the AI flood
The agent flags AI-written and templated job applications, spots duplicates and the same human applying twice, and surfaces the genuinely placeable few, with the evidence and a reason, never a bare score. In 2026 a real candidate is the scarce resource, and it finds them.
Verifies a real human, and flags never decide
The agent checks identity continuity across channels and integrity signals on video evidence to catch deepfakes and real-time assistance. Every flag routes to you for review with the evidence attached, and none of them rejects anyone.
Interviews on the candidate's terms
Async evidence interviews where the candidate picks text, voice or video, with no timer, testing real reasoning over gameable scripts. It is transparent that it is an assistant and a human decides, which reverses the roughly 40 percent who bail on AI-only rounds.
Onboards, keeps them engaged, and never ghosts
The agent ranks candidates with written reasoning, keeps every candidate updated so no one is ghosted, carries new hires through onboarding and early engagement, and learns from who actually gets hired and stays, recalibrating on retention, not vanity speed.
It de-noises the flood, shows its reasoning, and rejects no one on its own.
You posted a backend role. By morning, 41 people applied, most with AI-written resumes. Here is exactly what the agent did with them.
De-noises overnight
Scores all 41 against your profile, flags 26 as AI-templated with the giveaway evidence, and catches 2 duplicate identities. Nothing rejected.
Shows the why, in their own words
The 4 worth your minute come with written reasoning and quotes from the actual resume, not a black-box number you have to trust.
Routes an integrity flag to you
One video interview trips a liveness check. It routes to you with the evidence: a signal, never a verdict, and never an auto-reject.
You decide, it records
You advance, pass, or interview. Every step, and the reason, lands in one candidate record and the append-only audit log.
The same four questions get answered on every action and written to the audit log: who started it, which agent ran it, what it touched, and why it was allowed.
You wake up to the four that matter, not the forty-one.
It triages the overnight flood while you sleep, then sends one message at 07:30, with the reasoning for every candidate it surfaces.
And every Friday, a verifiable review: candidates you advanced against the ones it surfaced, outreach acceptance, evidence-interview completion, offers accepted, and the adverse-impact self-check for every role, plus what the hire would have cost in agency fees.
@afka @afka every morning at 07:30, tell me who is worth my minute and why.
Backend role: 41 new applications overnight. 26 flagged as AI-templated with the evidence attached, 2 duplicate identities caught. 4 worth your minute, with quotes from their resumes. Two candidates have been waiting on your interview feedback for three days.
Files your hiring team can open, on the cadence you set.
Each one is posted into Slack or Microsoft Teams as a real file, with the evidence it used and the decisions it wants from you.
The overnight triage
Who applied, what was flagged and why, and the few worth your minute, each with the lines from their own resume.
The verifiable review
Advanced against surfaced, outreach acceptance, interview completion, offers accepted, and the adverse-impact self-check per role.
The shortlist, reasoned
The candidates it would advance, each with written reasoning and the quotes it drew on, so a handoff is context and not archaeology.
The flags it will not act on
Every integrity and identity signal it raised, with the evidence, waiting for a person. None of them rejects anyone.
Inside the hiring stack you already run.
And in your ATS: Greenhouse, Lever, Ashby, Recruitee and thousands more, through the connectors you approve.
Three tiers, and one gate that has no tier.
You choose how much it does on its own. Reject, offer and any integrity-flagged decision go to a person at every level.
Suggest
The agent finds candidates, ranks them and drafts everything with its reasoning, then waits. Nothing reaches a candidate until you release it.
Review
The agent finds candidates, screens them and schedules interviews on its own, but holds every outreach send for approval, and reject, offer and any integrity-flagged decision always go to a human.
Auto
The agent handles sourcing, ranking, scheduling and ATS write-back within your rules. Rejections, offers and adverse actions never run autonomously; that gate has no tier.
What it won't do.
Being specific about the edges is part of the standard. Here is where the agent deliberately stops.
It won't reject anyone on its own
Reject, screen-out and offer are never finalized by the AI at any autonomy level. A human signs every decision that affects a candidate. There is no setting that changes this.
It won't convict on a flag
Fraud, deepfake and identity signals are routed to you for review with the evidence, never used to auto-reject. A suspicion is a prompt to look, not a verdict.
It won't score on who you are
It never scores on protected attributes or their proxies, runs an adverse-impact check on every shortlist, and stores only the evidence a candidate provided, not a background-data profile.
It won't ghost a candidate
Every active candidate gets a transparent status update on the clock. No one is left waiting in silence while a role is open.
It knows when it is time to hire.
Your agents share one memory, so a signal in another function arrives here as a staffing question with the evidence attached.
A support queue overflowing
A sustained support surge becomes a staffing signal, open a CX role, with the workload evidence attached, before burnout hits.
Sales outgrowing the team
A jump in won deals flags the need to hire for delivery capacity, before the work outruns the people who do it.
A silver medalist worth re-surfacing
When a role like a past one opens, the strong-but-declined candidates from last time come back up automatically, with no re-sourcing from scratch.
One record the team trusts
Every touch and its reasoning live in one candidate record, so a handoff to the hiring manager is context, not archaeology.
Questions hiring teams ask.
Isn't AI in hiring a legal risk?+
That is exactly why afka is built the way it is. Hiring is high-risk AI under the EU AI Act, NYC Local Law 144 and EEOC scrutiny, so the agent never finalizes a reject, screen-out or offer at any autonomy level; a human signs every candidate-impacting decision. It runs an adverse-impact check on every shortlist, never scores on protected attributes, and stores only candidate-provided evidence, not a background-data profile.
How does it handle the flood of AI-written applications?+
It de-noises the inbound overnight: flagging AI-templated and duplicate applications with the evidence, catching the same human applying under different identities, and surfacing the genuinely strong few with written reasoning and quotes from the actual resume. You wake up to the candidates worth your minute, not 41 look-alikes, and nothing is rejected without you.
Will candidates trust an AI interview?+
More than an AI-only one, and that is the point. The agent is transparent that it is an assistant and that a human decides, lets the candidate pick text, voice or video with no timer, and never ghosts anyone. That design reverses the roughly 40 percent of candidates who bail on AI-only rounds, so your funnel gets bigger, not smaller.
What happens when it suspects a deepfake?+
It routes the flag to you with the evidence and stops there. An integrity signal is a prompt to look, never a verdict and never an auto-reject, and the decision that follows is signed by a person like every other candidate-impacting decision.
Hire a recruiter that fixes what AI broke.
Connect your ATS and inbox, brief it like a colleague, and wake up to the few real candidates worth your minute: de-noised, reasoned, and with every decision that matters signed by a human.