Senior Software Engineer, AI Training - Ireland

Openkrill; United States; Remote; USD 138,000 - 276,000; Part time

Benefits offered by this job

Flexible hours

Remote work worldwide

Job summary

Openkrill is seeking a Senior/Staff/Principal‑level engineer to evaluate AI coding agents rather than write production code. You will judge if responses are sensible, explanations are useful, and the work reflects strong engineering judgement.

This remote, worldwide role pays $100‑$200 per hour for 10–20 hours per week. You will provide clear, opinionated feedback and help define what great looks like when using Codex, Claude Code, or Cursor in real‑world developer workflows.

Qualifications

• Senior, Staff or Principal‑level engineering experience.
• Strong background in TypeScript/JavaScript or Python.
• Hands-on experience with OpenAI Codex, Claude Code or Cursor.

Responsibilities

• Evaluate AI-generated coding interactions end to end.
• Judge usefulness, high-level correctness and engineering judgment.
• Provide clear, opinionated feedback in writing on strengths/weaknesses.

Skills

TypeScript/JavaScript

Python

AI evaluation

Technical writing

Tools

OpenAI Codex

Claude Code

Cursor

Job description

Contract | Remote, worldwide | $100-$200/hour depending on experience and location | 10-20 hrs/week

Check out this Loom video for more details: https://www.loom.com/share/b0d1b0bf24c44ae8b95dca84b9db60e5

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