Transparent opportunity matching and shortlist platform

An MVP, or minimum viable product, is the smallest version that your users can actually work with. It is not a cheap version of the full solution. It is a test, built to answer the questions that decide whether the rest is worth building.

1. Pick the riskiest assumption. Here: will recruiters and hiring managers building shortlists from live web data use it to solve "candidate and task lists are scattered across platforms, and shortlists are hard to explain or reproduce"?
2. Build only what tests it. One team, one use case, a few core modules. People do the rest by hand for now.
3. Run a paid pilot. Agree quality and outcome thresholds before the pilot using this measure: Accepted shortlist entries per recruiter hour and corrections after shortlist approval.
4. Measure, then decide. Track accepted shortlist entries per recruiter hour and corrections after shortlist approval; accepted-output rate; material error rate; reviewer correction time; actual repeat purchase. Then expand, change course or stop, with evidence instead of opinions.

MVP scope for this solution. Pilot scope: One fixed search scope and licensed data sources; final hiring decisions and eligibility checks remain human. Implement one approved input format, a bounded representative case set and the first two task modules: accept plain-English search criteria; curate results from the live web. Support the third module with operator review: enrich results with emails, funding details and tags. Include source references, corrections, basic organization access, approval states, export and value measurement. Use managed operator assistance for unresolved exceptions. The cost estimate covers this narrow prototype, not unrestricted multi-tenant scale, complex production integrations, specialist certification or physical operations.

After the MVP. Once paid pilots prove usefulness, automate repeatable reviewed steps and add one verified source integration. Expand supported inputs and case volume only after new evaluation cases pass. Build reusable customer configurations and recurring value reports around reviewer-approved shortlists linked to source evidence. Retain the explicit scope boundary: One fixed search scope and licensed data sources; final hiring decisions and eligibility checks remain human.

What the build depends on. Data upload and preview, asynchronous search jobs, editable version history, reviewer access and tested export formats. High-fidelity recruiting requires specialist human QA. Obtain representative authorized cases, baseline measurements, qualified reviewers and a buyer-side decision owner. Specific limitation: One fixed search scope and licensed data sources; final hiring decisions and eligibility checks remain human.

Pricing to test

Test a USD 300-1,500 fixed pilot for one defined search package. Offer a monthly production allowance after repeat demand. Quote complex multi-source or specialist recruiting workflows separately. These are test prices, not market benchmarks. Package the initial sale as one bounded reviewer-approved shortlists linked to source evidence. Recurring fees must specify volume, review depth and integration support. For exchanges, test a disclosed coordination or successful-service fee rather than holding customer funds. Reprice only after measuring real delivery labor; platform-build cost is separate from a commercial pilot fee.

Message to test

Reduce shortlist assembly time while keeping every match explainable. Demonstrate a concrete reviewer-approved shortlists linked to source evidence using the buyer's approved example and show the baseline, corrections and actual delivery effort.

Where to find buyers

Recruiters and hiring managers building shortlists from live web data professional communities; specialist consultants serving this buyer; permissioned partner introductions; practical demonstrations at relevant trade or practitioner events.

Lead magnet

A reviewed sample reviewer-approved shortlists linked to source evidence from a small authorized input set, with a transparent calculation of accepted shortlist entries per recruiter hour and corrections after shortlist approval and no promised savings.

The first 30 days

1. Week 1: interview five recruiters and hiring managers building shortlists from live web data and inspect a recent example of candidate and task lists scattered across platforms, and shortlists hard to explain or reproduce.
2. Week 2: prepare a consented or synthetic demonstration of the three task modules.
3. Week 3: seek one bounded paid pilot with agreed baseline and acceptance criteria.
4. Week 4: measure accepted shortlist entries per recruiter hour and corrections after shortlist approval, reviewer effort and repeat-purchase interest. This is a demand-validation plan, not a thirty-day full-product delivery promise.

Paid pilot

Agree quality and outcome thresholds before the pilot using this measure: Accepted shortlist entries per recruiter hour and corrections after shortlist approval. Continue only if the buyer accepts the actual output, the intended job outcome improves without unacceptable errors, and measured delivery cost fits willingness to pay. Revise or stop if access is unavailable, qualified review cannot be provided, or apparent savings disappear after corrections and support. Use held-out cases when comparing model quality; use a properly reviewed comparison design before making causal claims. Record missing cases and negative results alongside successful outputs.

Success metrics

Accepted shortlist entries per recruiter hour and corrections after shortlist approval; accepted-output rate; material error rate; reviewer correction time; actual repeat purchase.

Retention and expansion

Repeat the workflow when the buyer again needs reviewer-approved shortlists linked to source evidence. Retain permissioned settings and reviewed examples, report realized value honestly, and sell increased volume or adjacent approved workflows only after contribution margin and quality remain acceptable.

Why clients would pick it

A reusable library of approved search criteria, enrichment rules and review examples, together with reliable delivery for a narrow recruiting niche. Build a permissioned library of representative task cases, reviewer corrections and verified operating constraints for recruiters and hiring managers building shortlists from live web data. Repeatable delivery and useful integrations matter more than access to a base model.

Alternatives and positioning

Exa Websets, Stackpointer, Serra (YC S23), job boards and manual sourcing. Compare this product with the buyer's present method on accepted shortlist entries per recruiter hour and corrections after shortlist approval. Offer a bounded paid workflow instead of claiming broad autonomous expertise. Market uniqueness and competitor coverage are not verified.

Main delivery costs

Search attempts, data enrichment, storage, reviewer hours, client revision rounds and licensed source data. Additional initial validation requires representative authorized sample preparation, buyer interviews, buyer-side evaluation and bounded validation of reviewer-approved shortlists linked to source evidence. Track cost per accepted output, including correction work, unsuccessful cases and support.