For interviewers. Candidates — wrong page.

Stop interviewing ChatGPT.

Candidates automated the answers. We automated the questions. Fair’s fair. Someone raised $15M to help candidates cheat. We got annoyed and built the other side. We didn’t want to build surveillance. We wanted the guy who pasted the solution to explain it. Turns out that’s the whole product.

Integration by screenshot

CodeSignal·HackerRank·CoderPad·LeetCode·Shared screens

The problem

Someone on that call wrote beautiful code.

Maybe even the candidate. One in five admits to using AI in interviews (Blind, 3,617 professionals, 2025). The other four we take on faith.

Nobody gets cuffed here. It asks about the code — authors answer, impostors improvise. The verdict stays yours.

Flawless on the first try

A strong senior and a second monitor write identical code. One of them knows why.

Consistent, which is odd

People pause longer on hard questions. This pause never got the memo.

Your gut isn’t evidence

Confidence sways a debrief. It can’t explain line 26.

More Transparent
More Opaque

Your follow-up questions appear here

Capture the task and the code as it changes. Interview Cop uses that timeline to write questions tied to the solution on screen.

Here’s how it works:

1

Start a session — capture the technical challenge

2

Next — keep capturing as code evolves

3

Run Cop — generate questions from the timeline

Questions land here after each run.

How it works

You take screenshots.
It keeps the receipts.

Interview Cop sits at the edge of your screen. Nothing installs on the candidate’s side.

First

Capture

The task once, then the code at the moments that matter. It remembers so you don’t have to.

Then

Run Cop

Run it when a solution deserves a second look. It reads the timeline, not the candidate’s eyes.

Finally

Ask

Read a question out loud. Mark the answer. Your debrief writes itself.

During the call

Questions too specific
to bluff through

Select the area

Drag over the function that wrote itself. Yes, that one.

Run Cop

Short questions about decisions the author actually made. You just say them.

Ask and score

Mark right or wrong. It all lands in the debrief.

Question 2 · read out loud~1 min

“You reached for a HashMap in processTransaction. What happens to your lookups when two keys collide?”

Listen for

Chaining or open addressing. Strong candidates also mention lookups degrading toward O(n) when collisions pile up.

Right
Wrong

Better questions.
Fewer regrets.

It won’t catch everyone. It ends the guessing.

Watch the solution happen, not arrive

The timeline keeps the task, the middle steps, and the final answer. The middle is the part a pasted solution doesn’t have.

Code quality
OK
Explains own code
Flagged
Indentation
OK

Ask about their code, not our trivia

Nobody inverts binary trees on the job. Ask about their own functions, tradeoffs, and edge cases instead.

The solution
Senior
The walkthrough
Mid
The follow-up answers
Junior

Your panel stops improvising

It reads the code first, so whoever drew interview duty this week walks in with real questions.

Explained the hash map choice
Handled the edge case question
Recognized their own code

Quiet candidates get a fair shot

A question about their own code lets a quiet candidate prove it’s theirs — out loud, in a minute.

Search suspiciously perfect answers...
React Senior — answered question two
Backend Python — paused, recovered, hired
Pattern detectedSame variable names as the tutorial. Again.

Cheaper than flying candidates in

Google is bringing back in-person interviews over AI cheating (CNBC, 2025). You have options.

Engineering managers

Keep the screen moving

You’re watching code, listening, and taking notes. The follow-up is job four. Delegate it.

Technical interviewers

Ask about real decisions

A question bank doesn’t know what your candidate just wrote. The timeline does.

Talent leads

Debrief with receipts

A bad hire costs about 30% of first-year earnings (US Department of Labor). “Seemed strong” is not a rebuttal.

Questions a skeptic would ask