Is your hiring process AI-proof?
AI is rewriting what hiring teams can trust about a CV, a video interview, or a legacy psychometric test. This 6-question scorecard gives you an honest read on where your process holds up — and where it doesn't.
Six honest questions about your current hiring process. You'll get a 0–100 score, a category, and a tailored breakdown of where you can defend your process — and where you can't.
Trusted by Monzo, EDF, and more
The safe choice in 2020 is the vulnerable choice in 2026.
83% of candidates say they would use AI during a hiring process if they thought they wouldn't get caught (HEPI, 2025). That isn't a niche compliance issue — it's a direct threat to whether your shortlist still contains your best candidates, and whether you can defend your process to senior leadership when (not if) they ask what you're doing about it.
The vendors that felt safe a few years ago are precisely the ones AI can now solve from a screenshot. Legacy scale is no longer a strength. The scorecard above gives you an honest, two-minute read on where you stand.
-
CVs and cover letters — AI generates polished, tailored applications in seconds. Writing quality no longer signals candidate ability.
-
Application forms & written tasks — unsupervised, AI-friendly format. You're often assessing the AI, not the candidate.
-
Legacy multiple-choice tests — SHL, Cappfinity, Watson Glaser and others. AI solves their items reliably from a screenshot.
-
One-way video interviews — answers can be scripted by AI in real time. Deepfake avatars are an emerging threat.
- Use AI-resistant assessment formats. Interactive, dynamic content that AI can't screenshot, copy or audio-capture keeps the assessment honest.
- Reduce reliance on AI-generated content. CVs, cover letters and unsupervised written tasks should carry minimal weight in shortlist decisions.
- Move live human contact earlier. If a real person doesn't speak with the candidate until the final stage, almost everything before that point can be gamed.
- Have a defensible answer ready. When senior leaders ask what you're doing about AI in hiring, silence puts your assessment budget at risk.
- Review your process annually — at least. AI capability is moving fast enough that quarterly is closer to the right cadence.
Designed by Ben Schwencke, Chief Psychologist
Ben is a Chartered Member of the British Psychological Society and holds an MSc in Organisational Psychology. He has more than ten years' experience designing and validating cognitive and behavioural assessments, and has been studying the impact of generative AI on hiring assessments since 2023.
The scorecard's six questions are drawn from the strategic concerns that come up most often in conversations with hiring teams — ROI, defensibility, vendor choice, and shortlist quality. Each answer is weighted to give you a fast, honest read on where your process holds up.
The safe choice in 2020 is the vulnerable choice in 2026. Legacy scale doesn't beat AI — it's the surface AI exploits.
A clear, honest read on your process — not just a number.
Your overall score
A 0–100 score showing how AI-resistant your current hiring process really is.
Your category
One of four bands — AI-Resistant, Mostly Robust, Vulnerable, or Wide Open — with an honest headline.
Strengths and gaps
A tailored breakdown of what's working in your process and exactly where you're exposed.
Tailored next steps
Practical, band-specific guidance on what to do next — whether you're already strong or starting from scratch.
The scientific case for AI-resistant assessments.
Hiring teams already lean on Test Partnership's psychologists for advice on getting assessments right. Where AI is concerned, the conversation has shifted from "should we worry?" to "what do we change first?".
Test Partnership are a breath of fresh air... every call I have with them is quick, helpful and full of insight.
The psychometric tests have significantly improved our hiring process, leading to numerous acknowledgments and referrals from our clients who appreciate the thoroughness and accuracy these tools bring to recruitment.
Ben has always been extremely helpful when we have any questions and the tests themselves are so valuable to really understand our people.
I appreciate that support is immediately available to help me choose the right tests for the role I am recruiting for. For an SME like us, Test Partnership makes hiring easier and cost effective.
Everything you might want to know before you take it.
The six questions are designed to surface the strategic concerns that matter most: shortlist quality, defensibility to leadership, vendor format, reliance on AI-easy stages, recency of review, and an honest reality check. It's a directional tool, not a clinical one — but the questions, scoring, and bands have been built and weighted by our Chief Psychologist to give you a fast, honest read.
Anyone responsible for the integrity of a hiring process — talent acquisition leads, in-house recruiters, HR and people partners, hiring managers, and early-careers teams. You don't need to be a Test Partnership client to take it.
No cost, and no email required. You'll see your score and the full tailored breakdown directly in the page once you finish. If you'd like to talk through your result with our team, you can book a call from your result — but that's entirely optional.
Your individual answers are not stored or shared. Aggregate, anonymous completion data is recorded so we can improve the tool over time, but nothing identifiable to you leaves the page unless you choose to contact us.
Your result includes a tailored next-steps block, but the short version is: the longer this goes unaddressed, the harder it gets to fix. Most teams in the lower bands benefit from a 30-minute conversation to identify the highest-leverage change. We can walk you through what AI-resistant assessments look like in practice and how to switch without disrupting your hiring volume.
Yes — the result is visible on screen and can be screenshotted or shared. Many hiring teams use the scorecard as a discussion starter in process review sessions or in conversations with senior leadership about AI risk.