Staff Software Engineer (AI Evals)
工作人员软件工程师 (AI Evals) 合同 〇100元200美元/小时 〇20-40个小时/周 ◎尽快开始 我们正在寻找经验丰富的软件工程師，帮助评估与现代编码代理的交互质量。这不是传统的工程角色。你不会写生产代码。你将会评估一些更困难的事情：模型是否像一个伟大的工程师一样思考。这个作用实际上是什么？你将评估人工智能编码代理在现实世界中如何表现出来的情况 重点关注：· 答案是否有意义 · 前言和推理是否有用 · whether the output reflects strong engineering judgment · 互动是否对经验丰富的开发人员感到正确？这一角色是关于工程品味，而不是语法准确性。你将做什么？· 评估人工智能生成的编码交互端到端；·判断输出是否：· 有用性；· 正确 （高水平）· 与强大的工程师如何思考相一致；· 评估解释和推理质量，而不仅仅是代码；·区分不同层次的响应质量 （例如2 vs 4）; ·提供清晰的意见反：· 什么工作了？· 什么没有工作；· 什么感觉了？off?或误导性的 ·帮助定义与工具相互作用时看起来很好。我们特别寻找能够回答这样的问题的工程师：· 这是否像一个强大的工程师实际上会说的话？· 这个解释是有用的，还是只是技术上的正确吗？· 模型是否能引导用户好，或者仅仅倾销输出？· 这种互动会建立或侵蚀信任吗？你应该感到舒适地做主观但严格的判断。你是谁？· 工作人员/校长级工程师 （或同等经验）· 在以下内容之一有较好的背景：· Go · Python · Rust · TypeScript / JavaScript · 使用手工经验：· OpenAI Codex · Claude Code · Cursor · 深熟悉现代人工智能辅助开发工作流程 · 能够评估代码，而不需要完全执行或深入审查每一行 • 提供直接的意见反 · 对"好工程"看起来像什么很好 · 与 Cursor 等工具有经验 · 前面接触即时设计或评价工作流程 · 经历指导高级工程师或定义工程标准 的经验
查看英文原文
Staff Software Engineer (AI Evals)
Contract | $100–$200/hour | 20-40 hrs/week | Start ASAP
We’re looking for highly experienced software engineer 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:
- Go
- Python
- Rust
- TypeScript / JavaScript
- 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: ~20 hours+
- Duration: Through October w/possible extentions
- Start: ASAP
- Process:
- Take-home evaluation exercise
- Background Check
- Offer
Originally posted on Himalayas