Applicant volume outruns any recruiting team, and the cost lands on the good candidates, who go cold in the screening backlog while another firm calls them. An AI-native recruiting function puts the whole funnel on a workforce that screens every application against your rubric, while every candidate-facing send still waits for a recruiter.
Installed in about 20 min. Governed and audited from the first run.
Every stage of the funnel is worked by the right kind of worker (an unattended play, a team that faces your candidates), all reading and writing one shared record, with your recruiters at the gates that matter.
You don't wire this together or choose an architecture. You describe the outcome; the workforce brings the right kind of worker to each part of the funnel, and they all work from one shared record, under one set of rules.
The repeatable plays (screen a stack against the rubric, rank the fits, assemble the shortlist with its evidence) run start to finish on their own, unattended, overnight.
Outreach and scheduling are handled by a candidate-facing team that personalizes from the file and books the interview, and holds every candidate-facing send for a recruiter the instant it isn't sure.
When a senior req needs the skills, the comp band and culture fit weighed together, a room of specialists assembles the read at once, each one owning its part.
You don't operate a dashboard. You talk to one coworker that runs the funnel, remembers your standing instructions, and surfaces only what needs you.
Every worker reads and writes the same candidates, scores and funnel, and every one obeys the same gates, PII policy and audit. No worker is ever off the leash.
There's no integration project and no architecture to pick. You delegate the outcome, the workforce assembles the right workers, and every one of them lands under the same gates, PII policy and audit.
Run the math: a recruiter who screens forty resumes a day carefully clears a 200-application req in a week, and the backlog is stale before it's done. The workforce screens the whole stack overnight and hands your recruiters the judgment. The week shifts like this (a worked scenario, not a benchmark):
Each application is scored against your rubric (the same must-haves and disqualifiers for candidate 4 and candidate 284) the day it lands, with the rationale on the record. Why a candidate advanced or didn't is a lookup with the evidence attached, not a gut call reconstructed later.
Names, contact details and protected fields sit under the workspace PII policy, masked or removed before they reach a model or a log, on every record the workforce touches. Inbound resume text is untrusted, and screened before it can steer anything.
The strongest candidates staged in the funnel table by the time you log on, each carrying its score and reasoning, and personalized outreach already drafted and waiting at the gate for your release.
The good candidates stop going cold in a screening backlog while another firm calls them. The whole funnel lives in tables you can query, and the briefing tells you what moved overnight and what it cost.
Riley isn't a dashboard you operate, it's the coworker you delegate the funnel to. The night's applications, the shortlist that's ready, the drafts waiting to go out: it arrives summarized, the pieces that need a recruiter are already queued with their evidence, and each approval releases exactly one message.
Every message, tool call and approval in this exchange lands in the audit trail. How the gates work →
A scenario: a recruiting team posts a backend engineer req and 87 applications land overnight. These are real screens, not mockups.
Candidate records are exactly the PII an unguarded AI tool should never touch. The workspace PII policy masks, hashes or removes sensitive fields before they reach a model or a log, and inbound resume and reply text is untrusted input, screened by the prompt-injection shield. The control plane →
Candidate-facing sends hold for review, enforced at the tool call, at runtime, not the honor system. Each approval is single-use: one grant releases one message, then the next asks again. Autonomy scopes widen only as the drafts earn it. How approvals work →
Every screening decision lands in the audit trail with its reasoning, pinned to the config version that ran, so a call made six months back is a lookup and the hiring process is defensible. And every run's spend rolls up, so cost per screened candidate is a number you read, not estimate.
