Flowmind Request a demo

Find signal beyond the AI-polished resume.

Give candidates the same short work task. Get a reviewer-ready brief with their submission, source notes, and follow-up question responses. Structured in a way your team can review faster with evidence reviewers can audit.

Request a demo
Work evidence beyond the resume Consistent evidence tasks Review briefs for human judgment No automated rankings
Task cards
1 / 10
Project / Account Coordination

Respond to a scope-change request

Candidate writes a client update from a change request, timeline constraints, and team notes.

Candidate creates

Status update, risk list, owner/date notes, priority rationale, source checks, assumptions, and revision note.

Review brief shows

Which claims are source-backed, which dependencies are assumed, and where the original notes matter.

Reviewer asks

Which dependency would you confirm first? What would make the timeline unrealistic?

Required artifacts

Communication artifact, quality check, priority rationale, source/evidence review, assumptions or open questions, and revision note.

Why it works

Shows coordination judgment through a source-backed work artifact, not a broad read about the person.

Customer Support / Success

Handle a messy customer escalation

Candidate drafts a customer reply and escalation note from incomplete account details and policy context.

Candidate creates

Customer reply, escalation handoff, verification checklist, priority rationale, assumptions, and revision note.

Review brief shows

Which response details are source-backed, which facts need verification, and where reviewers should follow up.

Reviewer asks

Which account detail would you verify first? What would require manager review?

Required artifacts

Communication artifact, quality check, priority rationale, source/evidence review, assumptions or open questions, and revision note.

Why it works

Makes judgment under incomplete information visible without turning it into a personality read.

UX / Product Design

Critique a checkout or onboarding flow

Candidate critiques a flow from a brief, screens, and constraints, then proposes one practical revision.

Candidate creates

Flow critique, proposed revision, validation question, priority rationale, source checks, assumptions, and revision note.

Review brief shows

Which observations tie to the brief and screens, and which assumptions need validation.

Reviewer asks

Which assumption would you validate first? What information would change your revision?

Required artifacts

Communication artifact, quality check, priority rationale, source/evidence review, assumptions or open questions, and revision note.

Why it works

Turns design critique into a practical conversation about noticed evidence, honored constraints, and what to check next.

Copy / Content / Creative

Turn source notes into client-ready copy

Candidate rewrites product copy for a defined audience using source notes, customer context, and constraints.

Candidate creates

Rewritten copy, used source points, quality check, edit rationale, unsupported claims, assumptions, and revision note.

Review brief shows

Which product points are supported, which claims need context, and how the draft changed after feedback.

Reviewer asks

Which key point needs more context? What would you ask before publishing?

Required artifacts

Communication artifact, quality check, priority rationale, source/evidence review, assumptions or open questions, and revision note.

Why it works

Keeps the writing sample anchored to provided source material and audience constraints.

Marketing

Campaign performance diagnosis

Candidate reads a small metrics table, then names the strongest insight, riskiest assumption, and next experiment.

Candidate creates

Insight summary, quality checks, next-experiment rationale, source limits, assumptions, and revision note.

Review brief shows

What evidence supports the insight, where data is thin, and which assumptions shape the next experiment.

Reviewer asks

What data would change your recommendation? Which metric might be misleading?

Required artifacts

Communication artifact, quality check, priority rationale, source/evidence review, assumptions or open questions, and revision note.

Why it works

Shows how the candidate handles imperfect data without claiming predicted campaign outcomes.

Product / QA

Triage bugs from incomplete context

Candidate triages user-reported issues with screenshots, partial reproduction notes, and unclear severity.

Candidate creates

Priority order, reproduction questions, impact notes, handoff note, evidence gaps, assumptions, and revision note.

Review brief shows

Which impact claims are supported, which repro steps are missing, and what engineering needs clarified.

Reviewer asks

What would you ask engineering? Which report is the weakest?

Required artifacts

Communication artifact, quality check, priority rationale, source/evidence review, assumptions or open questions, and revision note.

Why it works

Keeps triage discussion on reported facts, assumptions, and questions engineering can act on.

Ops / Admin

Clean a messy spreadsheet and flag exceptions

Candidate cleans a small table, documents corrections, and flags exceptions that need review.

Candidate creates

Cleaned table notes, error list, exception log, priority rationale, source refs, assumptions, and revision note.

Review brief shows

Which corrections tie to source records, where information is missing, and which values should stay unchanged.

Reviewer asks

Which value would you leave unchanged? What rule was hardest to apply?

Required artifacts

Communication artifact, quality check, priority rationale, source/evidence review, assumptions or open questions, and revision note.

Why it works

Gives reviewers consistent evidence of accuracy and documentation without guessing work habits.

Sales / Client Services

Write the follow-up after a messy discovery call

Candidate turns rough call notes into a client follow-up with recap, questions, and next steps.

Candidate creates

Follow-up email, known facts, unsupported points, next-step rationale, questions, assumptions, and revision note.

Review brief shows

Which promises are supported by notes, which points need confirmation, and where reasoning needs inspection.

Reviewer asks

Which promise would you avoid making? What would you ask before the next call?

Required artifacts

Communication artifact, quality check, priority rationale, source/evidence review, assumptions or open questions, and revision note.

Why it works

Makes source discipline visible in client communication without treating polish as proof.

Finance Ops

Reconcile invoice lines against source records

Candidate compares invoice lines with contract and usage notes, then flags mismatches for review.

Candidate creates

Reconciliation notes, mismatch list, source refs, approval questions, priority rationale, assumptions, and revision note.

Review brief shows

Which mismatches are source-backed, where documentation is missing, and what needs approval.

Reviewer asks

Which line needs more documentation? What should not be changed without approval?

Required artifacts

Communication artifact, quality check, priority rationale, source/evidence review, assumptions or open questions, and revision note.

Why it works

Gives reviewers auditable evidence of source comparison and open approval questions.

Recruiting / People Ops

Synthesize interview notes into missing context

Candidate summarizes role criteria, recruiter notes, and interview snippets into missing context.

Candidate creates

Work summary, cited notes, missing context, follow-up prompts, priority rationale, assumptions, and revision note.

Review brief shows

Which observations are backed by notes, where context is missing, and what reviewers should verify directly.

Reviewer asks

Which observation is the weakest? What should the reviewer verify directly?

Required artifacts

Communication artifact, quality check, priority rationale, source/evidence review, assumptions or open questions, and revision note.

Why it works

Keeps people-ops synthesis evidence-bound, with context gaps visible for human review.

Request a demo