The take-home assessment platform. Send one tokenised link for any format (writing, strategy, design, code). Claude reads the submission against your grading guide and drafts the review, turning hours of grading into minutes.
No credit card. Five AI reviews a month on the free plan (enough to try it on your next few submissions).
See the reviewPick a role you're hiring for, then step through the three seats that matter: the admin who sends the brief, the candidate who does the work, and the reviewer who opens a review Claude has already drafted.
Correctness
78/100
Concurrency
62/100
Tests
85/100
Solid small ledger. Domain modelling is clear, the transfer API is well-named, and the spec suite covers the happy paths and a few sharp edges. The weakest spot is concurrency: the transfer isn't wrapped in a transaction, so a crash between withdraw and deposit would leave accounts out of step.
transfer_service_spec.rb covers overdraft, self-transfer and zero-amount cases, which most mid candidates skip.
38 def call(from:, to:, amount:) 39 from.lock! 40 from.withdraw(amount) 41 to.deposit(amount) # ← no surrounding transaction 42 end
Want the long version, with source viewer, questionnaire cross-check and audit trail?
At Shopify, Monday.com and Uswitch, we all defaulted to HackerRank and LeetCode — not because we thought they predicted great hires, but because they were the only thing we could operationally manage. Running real take-homes meant hours of engineering time per candidate, and nobody had that to spare. Graden is the tool I kept wishing existed.
— Sev, founder
Brief, invite, submission, review, debrief. No spreadsheets, no chasing, no reviewer scrambling the morning of the call.
Pick from the library or upload your own with a grading guide. The candidate gets a tokenised link, a clear deadline, and no account to create.
See who's opened, who's working, who's submitted. Whatever the format (inline writing, files, links, a GitHub repo), the work is locked at submission so later edits don't move the goalposts.
Claude reads the submission against your grading guide and drafts scores, flags and talking points. You read the work yourself, keep what lands, overrule what doesn't.
Powered by Anthropic's Claude.
The brief is the easy part. The review is where quality usually dies. We fix that.
Writing samples, campaign decks, strategy briefs, design exercises, GitHub repos. Same workflow, same grading guide structure, same calibrated review.
A coding-test tool for your engineer. A shared doc for your marketer. A Figma link for your designer. Graden runs all of them through the same prepared review.
Your grading guide, your criteria, your weights. Claude drafts the scores and talking points, the reviewer reads the work, agrees or overrules, and makes the call. Scores are inputs to judgment, not verdicts.
Every review arrives with a summary, flags tied to each grading criterion, and specific things to discuss. Integrity checks on the candidate's explanations of their own work. No more opening the submission ten minutes before the call.
Short, direct answers. If something's not here, ask us.
No. Graden drafts scores, flags and talking points against your grading guide. The reviewer reads the work, agrees or overrules, adds their own notes, and makes the call. We never surface a "verdict" to the reviewer or the candidate.
Anything you can score against a grading guide. Writing samples, content briefs, strategy decks, marketing campaigns, design exercises, analytics tasks, code submissions. If you can score it against criteria, Graden can run the whole loop. The pipeline is the same regardless of format.
Yes. Submissions are captured the moment they're sent and stored in encrypted storage, scoped to your organisation. For code, the candidate installs the Graden GitHub App on the single repo they're submitting (read-only, per-repo, revocable). Nothing is shared outside your workspace.
It will, sometimes. That's why every talking point links back to the grading criterion it's scoring and, where relevant, the specific file, page or passage. You mark a point as agreed, push back on it, or add your own. The review you save is yours, not the model's.
Flagged, not blocked. The reviewer sees that a submission was late and by how long, and decides what to do. We're not in the business of disqualifying candidates on your behalf.
Free to start. Paid plans from £49/month. Priced per review, not per seat. See pricing →
Send the brief, track the submission, open a review that is already drafted. Take-homes, without the operational tax.
Graden AI · draft comment on line 40–41
Wrap both sides in
ActiveRecord::Base.transaction. As written, a crash after the withdraw silently loses the deposit.