Software Engineer

G2i Inc.; United States; Remote; USD 138,000 - 276,000; Part time

Job summary

G2i Inc. is seeking a highly experienced software engineer to evaluate AI-assisted coding interactions. This remote, worldwide role focuses on judging whether responses reflect strong engineering judgment and useful explanations, not on writing production code.

You will provide clear, opinionated feedback and help define what great looks like when working with tools like Codex, Claude Code and Cursor. Strong English is required, and engagements are 10-20 hours per week with flexible scheduling.

Qualifications

• Senior, Staff or Principal-level engineer (or equivalent experience).
• Strong background in TypeScript/JavaScript or Python.
• Excellent written and spoken English (B2 or above).

Responsibilities

• Evaluate whether AI-generated coding interactions are meaningful and useful.
• Assess explanations and reasoning for accuracy and engineering relevance.
• Provide clear, opinionated feedback and define what great looks like when using tools like Codex, Claude Code and Cursor.

Skills

TypeScript/JavaScript

Python

English communication

Education

Senior/Staff/Principal level experience

Tools

OpenAI Codex

Claude Code

Cursor

Job description

Описание: 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: 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

Задачи

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 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.

Требования

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 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