Staff Software Engineer, AI Code Review - Python, Go, Rust, C#
Role Overview
This is a senior/staff-level contract role focused on evaluating how AI coding agents like OpenAI Codex and Claude Code behave in real-world scenarios, judging engineering taste, reasoning quality, and interaction usefulness rather than writing production code. You'll assess AI-generated coding interactions end-to-end, differentiate response quality levels, and provide opinionated feedback to help define what great AI-assisted development looks like. The hire will directly shape evaluation standards and improve trust in modern AI coding tools.
Perks & Benefits
Fully remote contract with flexible part-time hours of roughly 10–20 per week, paying a competitive $100–$200/hour through early May with possible extension. The role offers a fast start and high autonomy, ideal for experienced engineers seeking impactful, low-meeting work. It provides exposure to cutting-edge AI coding tools and evaluation workflows, with potential for career growth in the emerging AI developer-tooling space.
Full Job Description
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
Similar jobs
Found 6 similar jobs