Free to join. Hard to get in.
Only the best get in.
Anyone in tech can apply. Only people who can show real, recent, senior-level work are accepted. That's why your ten are worth reading.
Four gates.
01
Application
A detailed form that changes with their discipline, plus CV and proof of work. We look for specific skills and real examples with outcomes.
02
Screening
We review every application against the evidence given. AI helps sort, a person decides. Proof links must match the claims.
03
Interview
A conversation about their actual work: what they did, how, and what they'd do differently. We test depth and judgement.
04
Accepted
They join the pool and get matched when a brief comes in. They never apply for jobs.
Vetted for their discipline, not a generic test.
| Discipline | Proof we ask for | In the interview |
|---|---|---|
| Engineering | GitHub or code sample, systems shipped | Architecture choices, trade-offs, debugging a real problem |
| Design | Portfolio with outcomes | Walkthrough of one case study end to end |
| Product | A product outcome with numbers | Prioritisation and working with engineering |
| Project and delivery | Budgets, teams, certifications | A project they turned around |
| Data and AI | Something running in production | How they measured it worked |
| SEO and growth | Results with evidence | Tools, technical fixes, working with developers |
| Strategy and leadership | A delivered strategy, references | Stakeholder level and real influence |
Why people get declined
- No evidence of recent, hands-on work
- Claims that don't hold up in conversation
- Seniority on paper, not in practice
- Poor communication with non-specialists
Kept current
- Talent update availability, rates and skills themselves
- We nudge anyone who hasn't updated in [X] weeks
- Client feedback after every call feeds into their profile
- Stale profiles drop out of matching