Staff Software Engineer, AI Code Review - Python, Go, Rust, C#

G2i is hiring a remote contractor for a senior AI code review role focused on evaluating how coding agents such as Codex and Claude Code perform in real-world situations. The work is not about writing production software, but about judging whether the model’s responses, explanations, and overall judgment match what an experienced engineer would expect. It suits staff or principal-level software engineers who can make careful, opinionated assessments about quality and trustworthiness. The role asks for strong technical experience in Python, Go, Rust, or C# and a good sense of what high-quality engineering thinking looks like.

SENIOR AI INTERACTION EVALUATOR (CODEX / CLAUDE CODE) Contract | $100–$200/hour | 10–20 hrs/week | Start ASAP (through early May) Check out this Loom video for more details! https://www.loom.com/share/b0d1b0bf24c44ae8b95dca84b9db60e5 We’re looking for highly experienced software engineer (SR+) 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: - TypeScript / JavaScript - Python - 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: ~10–20 hours/week - Duration: Through early May (with possible extension) - Start: ASAP - Process: - Take-home evaluation exercise - One behavioral interview