OpenJobs AI - End-to-End Autonomous AI Recruiter

@thekrew We think the personalization layer is the product. Mira doesn’t just blast recruiter-written templates at scale — it generates candidate-specific outreach based on profile, experience, signals, and role context, while still keeping recruiters in control of tone and constraints. The hard part is maintaining a quality floor as volume increases, so we optimize more for response quality and relevance than raw send volume.

@thekrew Sharp question, Vamshi. You're pointing at the exact failure mode that killed the first wave of "AI sequence" tools.

Our framing: the personalization-volume tradeoff is a symptom of treating outreach as a writing problem. It isn't. The real bottleneck isn't generating words per candidate. It's having something specific and true to say to each one that the recruiter couldn't have written themselves at scale.

Mira writes per-candidate, never from templates. But the part that actually matters happens upstream of the message. Before any outreach is generated, the Job Brief Agent and Search Agent produce a structured fit narrative for each candidate: which signals in their profile map to which requirements in the role, what's core versus adjacent, and what would plausibly motivate this specific person to take a call given their trajectory and current context. The message is just the surface rendering of that reasoning.

The reason quality doesn't collapse at volume is that we deliberately don't optimize volume. What we optimize for is qualified interviews, not messages sent or even reply rate. That changes the entire shape of the system. We'd rather contact 30 candidates with a 40% positive response rate than 300 with 4%. Unit economics are healthier, candidate experience stays dignified, and employers waste fewer interview slots.

The honest tradeoff we accept: Mira is slower per candidate than a template blaster. For technical and specialist hiring, which is where we're focused, that's the right side of the tradeoff to be on.

Would love to compare notes on how the sales-side version of this problem looks for you. The shapes seem to rhyme.

@ebroms Once a candidate books a call, the experience can be fully configurable by the employer. Some companies prefer an AI-led screening interview first for speed and consistency, while others route candidates directly to a human recruiter or hiring manager. Our goal is to reduce recruiter overhead without making the candidate experience feel robotic or impersonal.

@ebroms When someone books a call with us, they're talking to a real human at the company. A recruiter or the hiring manager, depending on the role. Mira doesn't sit in for the interview.

That's intentional. The moment a candidate agrees to a call, they're making a real career decision, and finding an AI on the other end would feel like getting catfished. People are fine chatting with an AI to confirm the boring stuff. Timing, scope, comp range, whether the role's actually remote. They're not fine pitching their career to a chatbot for 30 minutes, and frankly, they shouldn't have to.

Our split is pretty simple. AI does what AI is actually good at: searching, personalizing, juggling async threads, getting calendars to agree with each other. Humans do what humans are still way better at: reading whether someone's the right fit, conveying what the team's actually like, closing. Candidates get both. Nobody has to pretend to be the other one.

@ayanyu thanks!

@ayanyu Thanks for your comments! we keep going!