Two pipelines, one team, and both go quiet.
Most tools help with one side. A placement needs both moving at once.
Five places a placement falls over.
The offer-to-start window is the most expensive of them, and the least covered.
Every application answered in seconds, at any hour, on the channel they used.
Your job-related questions, asked consistently, summarized to the consultant.
Hiring managers prospected and shortlist feedback chased until you get an answer.
Both calendars handled, confirmations sent, no-shows recovered and rebooked.
Check-ins through the notice period, and after day one, so drop-off gets caught early.
It collects the facts. Your consultant makes the call.
Screening is where AI in hiring gets legally interesting. So the agent gathers role-relevant, job-related information and never makes a suitability, ranking, or rejection decision. That stays with a human, on the record.
You configure the questions, and they stay job-related. The agent asks the same set in the same order for every candidate on a role, and logs every exchange, so there is a consistent record. We enforce the process you set; we don't provide legal advice, and employment rules vary by jurisdiction.
Same desk.
Fewer placements lost.
Your ATS stays the system of record.
ScendCore reads candidate records and client orders, works the activity, and writes back.
Native ATS adapters are prioritized by customer demand. Today, connect any ATS or job-board source that exposes an API or accepts a JSON POST via webhook, or batch-sync by CSV. Tell us which you run and we'll confirm the path on the call.
A candidate screened at 9pm, a client brief chased the same night, and an offer-stage check-in, with your consultant pulled in where it matters.
“ScendCore is not just another AI assistant. It gives us a governed AI execution layer that can follow up, route work, surface what needs attention, and keep humans in control.”
The ones that actually decide it.
Can the agents actually screen candidates?+
They gather, they don't judge. The agent asks the job-related questions you configure — work authorization, notice period, compensation range, role-specific requirements, in the same order for every candidate on a role, then summarizes the exchange for your consultant. It never scores, ranks, or rejects anyone. That decision stays with a human.
Are we exposed on AI-in-hiring rules?+
The design point is that no hiring decision is automated. The agent collects information and coordinates; suitability, ranking, and rejection are always your consultant's. Every exchange is logged, so you have a consistent record of what was asked. Employment rules vary by jurisdiction — we enforce the process you configure, and we don't provide legal advice.
Will it work with our ATS?+
It sits above your ATS rather than replacing it. Native adapters for Bullhorn, Crelate, Vincere, JobAdder, and Loxo are on the roadmap, prioritized by demand. Today you connect via webhook — any ATS or job-board source with an API or that accepts a JSON POST, or CSV batch sync. It captures candidate records, client orders, and placements, and writes back.
What about candidates ghosting between submission and interview?+
That silence is what reads as rejection. The agent keeps the candidate warm through the gap, confirms and reminds before interviews, and recovers no-shows by rebooking rather than letting them lapse.
Does it handle client business development too?+
Yes, and that is the half most tools skip. Mark prospects hiring managers, follows up on briefs, and chases shortlist feedback until you get an answer, so BD is not just what happens when the desk goes quiet.
How does this compare to hiring another consultant?+
Different shape. A junior consultant takes months to ramp and carries a salary; ScendCore is live in about a week and does the chasing consistently, every hour, without judgment calls. It doesn't replace a consultant's relationships — it removes the follow-up work that stops them selling. We scope it against what it stands in for on the call.