AI Evaluator | Staff Software Engineer

G2i Inc.; Oregon; Hybrid; USD 83,000 - 165,000; Part time

Job summary

G2i Inc. seeks a Staff/Principal-level engineer to evaluate AI coding agents like OpenAI Codex, Claude Code and Cursor. You won’t write production code; you’ll judge whether the model thinks like a strong engineer and provide decisive feedback.

Hours are ~20 hours per week, short-term engagements from 2 weeks to 6 months, remote in the United States. You will assess how the model handles real-world coding scenarios and communicate standards for excellent engineering interactions.

Qualifications

• Staff / Principal-level engineer or equivalent experience.
• Strong background in Go, Python, Rust or TS/JavaScript.
• Hands-on experience with OpenAI Codex, Claude Code and Cursor.
• Deep familiarity with modern AI-assisted dev workflows.

Responsibilities

• Evaluate AI-generated coding interactions end-to-end.
• Judge usefulness, correctness, and engineering judgment.
• Assess explanations and reasoning, not just code.
• Distinguish between quality levels of responses (2 vs 4).
• Provide clear, opinionated feedback on what worked and what didn’t.
• Define what great looks like when using AI tools.

Skills

Go

Python

Rust

TypeScript/JavaScript

Tools

OpenAI Codex

Claude Code

Cursor

Job description

Contract | 20-40 hrs/week

We’re looking for highly experienced software engineer 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:

• Go
• Python
• Rust
• TypeScript / JavaScript

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

• Hours: ~20 hours+
• Duration: Short‑term, starting from 2 weeks to 6 months
• Start: As soon as a project starts
• Process: Take‑home evaluation exercise
• Background Check
• Offer