Spaces:
Running
Running
| # Talentry AI - User Guide | |
| Welcome. This guide is for **recruiters and HR teams** who want to use | |
| Talentry AI to shortlist candidates. | |
| --- | |
| ## 1. What Talentry AI does | |
| You give it: | |
| * a pool of candidate profiles (JSON / JSONL), and | |
| * a free-text job description. | |
| It returns a **ranked top-100 shortlist** with a one-sentence justification | |
| per candidate that quotes real facts from their profile. | |
| It explicitly down-weights: | |
| * keyword stuffers (people who list 10 AI skills but never used them); | |
| * inactive candidates (no logins, low response rate); | |
| * impossible profiles (the dataset's honeypots); | |
| * career-misaligned profiles (e.g. Marketing Managers applying for an | |
| AI engineer role). | |
| ## 2. Trying it without installing anything | |
| 1. Open the live demo: **<https://huggingface.co/spaces/williyam/talentry-ai>** | |
| (Open-source fine-tuned LLM: <https://huggingface.co/williyam/redrob-qwen-grpo>) | |
| 2. Click **"Feed sample candidates"**. | |
| 3. You'll see the parsed JD card, a ranked-row table, and a per-candidate | |
| score breakdown with reasoning. | |
| ## 3. Running on your own data | |
| 1. Drop your `candidates.jsonl` (or `.json` / `.jsonl.gz`) onto the | |
| **Candidates** dropzone. | |
| 2. (Optional) Drop a custom job description: `.txt` / `.md` / `.docx` / `.pdf`. | |
| If left empty, the default Senior-AI-Engineer JD is used. | |
| 3. Set **Top-K = 100** if you want the validator-clean submission file. | |
| 4. Click **"Rank uploaded pool"**; download either `Ranked_shortlist.csv` | |
| (validator-clean) or `Ranked_shortlist.xlsx` (styled for human review). | |
| ## 4. Running locally (CLI) | |
| ```bash | |
| git clone https://github.com/williyam-m/talentry-ai.git | |
| cd talentry-ai | |
| make venv install | |
| cp /path/to/candidates.jsonl data/raw/ | |
| make submission | |
| # → data/output/submission.csv | |
| ``` | |
| The validator from the official bundle should now report: | |
| ``` | |
| Submission is valid. | |
| ``` | |
| ## 5. Interpreting the score breakdown | |
| Every score has six visible components: | |
| | Component | What it captures | | |
| | ----------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------- | | |
| | Title alignment | Did their actual career arc match the role? | | |
| | Hybrid retrieval | Does their profile text describe the work in the JD? | | |
| | Skill evidence | Are their AI skills *backed* by endorsements / duration? | | |
| | Experience band | Are they inside the years-of-experience window? | | |
| | Location | Are they in Pune/Noida / Tier-1 India / willing to relocate? | | |
| | Behavioural multiplier | Are they actually available (active / responsive / verified)? | | |
| If the **final** score is mostly carried by `skill_evidence` but the | |
| title alignment is near zero, you're looking at someone who knows the | |
| tech stack but hasn't held the right kind of role - interview risk goes up. | |
| ## 6. Privacy and safety | |
| * No candidate data ever leaves your machine. | |
| * The ranking pipeline makes **zero** network calls. | |
| * Reasoning strings are assembled from the candidate's own profile fields, | |
| so the system cannot hallucinate skills or employers. | |