Senior Software Engineer - AI Interaction Evaluator (Codex / Claude Code, up to $200/hr)

G2i Inc.; Turkey; On-site; TRY 3,286,000 - 13,145,000; Full time

Job summary

G2i Inc. is seeking a Senior AI Interaction Evaluator (Codex / Claude Code) contract role. You will assess AI coding agents on realism, usefulness, and engineering judgment without writing production code.

Start ASAP, 10–20 hrs/week, hourly pay between $50 and $200. You’ll judge how the model thinks like a great engineer and help define high-quality interaction standards for tools like Cursor.

Qualifications

• Strong background in Python programming.
• Experience with OpenAI Codex or similar coding assistants.
• Familiarity with Cursor and AI-first IDEs.
• Ability to judge quality of engineering explanations.
• Comfort giving direct, opinionated feedback.

Responsibilities

• Evaluate AI-generated coding interactions end-to-end.
• Judge usefulness, correctness, and engineering judgment at a high level.
• Assess quality of explanations and reasoning.
• Provide clear, opinionated feedback on what worked and what didn’t.
• Define what great looks like when interacting with Cursor.

Skills

Python programming

Engineering judgment

Feedback writing

Tools

OpenAI Codex

Cursor

Job description

Senior AI Interaction Evaluator (Codex / Claude Code)

Contract | $50-200/hr | 10–20 hrs/week | Start ASAP (through early May)

Check out this Loom video for more details!

We’re looking for a 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

• Strong background in one of the below:
• Python
• Hands-on experience using:
• OpenAI Codex
• 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
• 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: Through early May (with possible extension)