Senior AI Interaction Evaluator (Codex / Claude Code)
Contract | $50-200/hr | 10+ hrs/week | Project-based
Roles open on a rolling basis - apply to join the talent bench and we’ll reach out when one matches. Expect 40+ hrs once a project starts; timing depends on availability, but we move people in at the earliest genuine opportunity.
These roles are currently filled but we hire on a rolling basis as new projects open up. Apply now to join our talent bench — qualified candidates will be contacted directly when roles become available.
Check out this Loom video for more details!
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
US and Canada up to $200/hr
EU and Latam up to $150/hr
Other locations up to $100/hr
Hours: ~10–20 hours/week
Duration: Ongoing — project-based
Process:
Take-home evaluation exercise
One behavioral interview
G2i is a contractor platform that specializes in AI-assisted software development and machine learning training. The company engages experienced software engineers to evaluate AI coding agents (like OpenAI Codex and Claude Code), train large language models through reinforcement learning from human feedback (RLHF), and help improve code generation capabilities. G2i works with engineers to rank, critique, and refactor AI-generated code across multiple programming languages, converting expert feedback into reward signals that help models learn to produce production-grade code. The platform enables remote, project-based work for senior engineers and staff-level developers who want to contribute to AI model improvement.
