Staff Software Engineer, AI Code Review - Python, Go, Rust, C#

g2i; United States; On-site; USD 138,000 - 276,000; Full time

Job summary

g2i is seeking a Senior AI Interaction Evaluator to assess how AI coding agents behave in real-world scenarios. You will evaluate responses for usefulness, correctness at a high level, and whether the reasoning reflects expert engineering thinking.

This role emphasizes engineering taste over syntax, requires subjective yet rigorous judgments, and includes a take-home exercise plus one behavioral interview. Start ASAP with about 10–20 hours per week, contracting through early May, with the

Qualifications

• Staff / Principal‑level engineer (or equivalent experience).
• Strong background in TS/JavaScript or Python.
• Hands-on experience with OpenAI Codex, Claude Code and Cursor.

Responsibilities

• Evaluate AI-generated coding interactions end-to-end.
• Judge whether outputs are useful, correct (high level) and aligned with strong engineering thinking.
• Assess the quality of explanations and reasoning, not just code.
• Distinguish between levels of response quality (e.g. 2 vs 4).
• Provide clear, opinionated feedback on what worked, what didn’t and what felt off.
• Help define what great looks like when interacting with Cursor.

Skills

Staff / Principal level engineer

TypeScript / JavaScript

Python

Tools

OpenAI Codex

Claude Code

Cursor

Job description

Senior AI Interaction Evaluator (Codex / Claude Code)

Contract | $100–$200/hour | 10–20 hrs/week

Check out this Loom video for more details!

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 — 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:

  • TypeScript / JavaScript

  • Python

• 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

• Rate: $100–$200/hour

• Hours: ~10–20 hours/week

• Duration: Through early May (with possible extension)

• Start: ASAP

• Process:

  • Take-home evaluation exercise

  • One behavioral interview