Hiring screening support
The agent structures the applicant pile: consistent summaries, knockout facts verified, missing information chased. Your team reads less and decides everything.
The problem
A single opening draws hundreds of applications. Reviewing them honestly takes minutes each; multiplied across open roles it becomes weeks of work.
Fast manual screening is arbitrary: studies clock initial resume scans at around eleven seconds, decided by whatever catches the eye.
Automated rejection is a legal minefield. Regulators and courts treat AI hiring decisions as employment decisions, with audits, notices, and liability attached.
How the agent runs it
Structure
Each application becomes a consistent summary: experience, requirements met, gaps, missing information flagged.
Verify basics
Objective knockout facts (work authorization, licenses, location) get confirmed with the candidate by the agent.
Queue for humans
Your team reviews structured candidates in a fraction of the time. Every advance and every rejection is a human click.
Log
The full trail (what was summarized, who decided what) is kept for compliance.
Human in the loop
Where your team stays in charge
This is deliberately decision support, not automated screening. Laws like NYC Local Law 144 and the EU AI Act treat automated hiring decisions as regulated, high-risk territory. Humans make every decision here; the agent makes each decision faster.
Work arrives
invoice · ticket · email
Passcut agent
reads · codes · prepares
Your team approves
one click · always human
Done, filed
in your system
Anything unclear goes straight to a person
What changes
Typical before and after for this workflow. We measure your baseline during the audit and commit to numbers per engagement.
| Before | With the agent | |
|---|---|---|
| Review time | Minutes per resume, hundreds deep | Structured summaries, seconds each |
| Consistency | Whatever catches the eye | Same summary format, every candidate |
| Missing info | Rejected or chased by email | Chased automatically |
| Compliance trail | None | Every decision logged with its human |
Connects to what you run
- JazzHR
- Breezy HR
- Workable
- BambooHR
- Rippling
- Gusto
Different stack? We integrate through the official API first, exports and email second, browser automation last. The audit tells you where your tools sit before you spend anything.
Common questions on this workflow
Can it auto-reject clearly unqualified candidates?
We default to no. Objective, disclosed knockout rules like work authorization can be automated with notice where law allows, but blanket auto-rejection is where the lawsuits are. A human click per rejection is cheap insurance.
Doesn't AI screening create bias?
The design goal is the opposite: identical summary structure for every candidate, no scoring, no ranking, and humans deciding. We keep the agent out of the decision precisely because that is where bias liability lives.
Related: Invoice processing automation · Receipt & expense data extraction · AP approval workflow automation
See what hiring screening support would save you
45 minutes. We map the workflow as you run it today, estimate the hours an agent returns, and quote the pilot. No obligation.