The tech hiring process is broken. Not just inefficient - actively destructive to both companies and candidates. I built Ronin to expose this and fix it.
The problem isn't just that hiring is slow (though it is). The problem is that we've built a system that actively works against its stated purpose of matching talent with opportunity.
For one, companies deploy armies of automation tools to screen candidates while simultaneously crying foul when candidates automate their applications. The hypocrisy here is stunning. This implies something deeper: the real purpose of these systems isn't to find talent - it's to maintain bureaucratic control.
(And yes, I know someone will comment about "but we need to verify candidates care enough to fill out forms manually" - this is exactly the kind of cargo cult thinking that got us here)
Ronin is a direct response to this broken system. It's not trying to "play nice" with broken processes - it's designed to expose and bypass them.
The system:
- Uses ML to actually understand job requirements (not just keyword matching)
- Decodes corporate doublespeak about compensation and requirements
- Automates form submission (yes, this breaks some TOS - that's the point)
- Maintains a structured database of your search (because spreadsheets aren't enough)
The technical implementation uses OpenAI's language models to parse job descriptions at a semantic level. This matters because it means we're not just playing the keyword matching game - we're actually understanding what companies want (often better than they do themselves).
Will some people complain this "isn't fair"? Of course. But the current system isn't fair either - it's just unfair in favor of companies. When employers use automation but demand manual applications from candidates, they've already broken the implicit contract of fairness.
This implies something important: if your hiring process can be automated away, it wasn't adding value. It was bureaucratic theater.
The limitations are obvious: rate limits exist, forms change, AI isn't perfect. But this misses the point. The goal isn't perfection - it's to expose the fundamental brokenness of current hiring practices.
The real question isn't whether tools like this should exist. The question is what it says about our industry that they need to.
(And for those about to comment about ethics - ask yourself: is it more ethical to maintain a broken system or to build tools that expose its flaws?)