TypeScript Senior Software Engineer, AI Training at G2i

Job description

Contract | Remote, worldwide | $100-$200/hour depending on experience and location | 10-20 hrs/week Please note that eligibility may vary depending on your location, as some regions may not be supported by the client. Check out this Loom video for more details: loom.com 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. Syntax correctness is the easy part. WHAT YOU'LL BE DOING • Evaluate AI-generated coding interactions end to end • Judge whether outputs are useful, correct at a high level, and aligned with how a strong engineer would think • Assess the quality of explanations and reasoning, not just the code • Distinguish between levels of response quality (what makes something a 2 vs a 4) • Give clear, opinionated feedback in writing on what worked, what didn't, and what felt off or misleading • Help define what great looks like when working with tools like Cursor, Codex and Claude Code WHAT WE MEAN BY "TASTE" We're 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, and explaining them clearly. WHO YOU ARE • Senior, Staff or Principal-level engineer (or equivalent experience) • Strong background in TypeScript/JavaScript or Python • Hands-on experience with at least one of OpenAI Codex, Claude Code or Cursor • Deep familiarity with modern AI-assisted dev workflows • Able to evaluate code without executing it or reviewing every line • Strong written and spoken English (B2 or above). You'll be writing detailed feedback and recording short video explanations, so this is a hard requirement • Comfortable giving direct, opinionated feedback • High bar for what good engineering looks like NICE TO HAVE • Prior exposure to prompt design or evaluation workflows • Experience mentoring senior engineers or defining engineering standards ENGAGEMENT DETAILS • Rate: $100-$200/hour depending on experience and location • Hours: 10-20 hours/week, flexible • Duration: ongoing. Projects run from about two weeks to a few months each, and we offer new ones to evaluators who do well • Start: as soon as you clear the take-home and a project has an open seat • Process: one take-home evaluation exercise with a recorded Loom walkthrough. No interview

Requirements

Must-haves

Contract | Remote, worldwide | $100-$200/hour depending on experience and location | 10-20 hrs/week
Please note that eligibility may vary depending on your location, as some regions may not be supported by the client.
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.
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. Syntax correctness is the easy part.
Evaluate AI-generated coding interactions end to end
Judge whether outputs are useful, correct at a high level, and aligned with how a strong engineer would think
Assess the quality of explanations and reasoning, not just the code
Distinguish between levels of response quality (what makes something a 2 vs a 4)
Give clear, opinionated feedback in writing on what worked, what didn't, and what felt off or misleading
Help define what great looks like when working with tools like Cursor, Codex and Claude Code
We're 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, and explaining them clearly.

Nice-to-haves

Prior exposure to prompt design or evaluation workflows
Experience mentoring senior engineers or defining engineering standards

Application prep

Use the role’s language and application details while tailoring your materials.

Keywords to mirror

aitypescriptjavascriptpython

Platform: ashby
Effort: quick