Staff Software Engineer (AI Evals)

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

Job summary

OpenKrill is seeking a Staff Software Engineer (AI Evals) in the United States. The contract role pays $100–$200/hour for ~20–40 hours per week, starting ASAP.

You will assess AI coding agents’ behavior, focusing on usefulness, reasoning quality, and engineering judgment rather than traditional production coding. Responsibilities include end-to-end evaluation of AI interactions, providing opinionated feedback, and helping define what great looks like when using Cursor and similar tools.

Qualifications

• Staff/Principal level engineering with strong judgment.
• Ability to evaluate AI-assisted coding interactions rigorously.
• Experience with modern AI-assisted dev workflows.
• Comfort giving direct, opinionated feedback to engineers.

Responsibilities

• Evaluate AI-generated coding interactions end-to-end.
• Judge usefulness, correctness, and engineering thinking.
• Provide clear feedback on what worked, didn’t, and what felt off.
• Distinguish quality levels in model outputs (2 vs 4).
• Help define what great looks like when using AI coding tools.

Skills

Go

Python

Rust

TypeScript / JavaScript

Tools

OpenAI Codex

Claude Code

Cursor

Job description

STAFF SOFTWARE ENGINEER (AI EVALS)

Contract | $100-$200/hour | 20-40 hrs/week | Start ASAP

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

• Rate: $100-$200/hour
• Hours: ~20 hours+
• Duration: Through October w/possible extentions
• Start: ASAP
• Process:- Take-home evaluation exercise- Background Check- Offer