Humancode is a real-time competitive coding and technical assessment platform built to measure genuine problem-solving skills. There is no AI assistance or autocomplete — just the developer, the editor, and the tests. Teams can create assessments, invite candidates without requiring an account, review execution results and integrity signals, and replay supervised coding sessions to understand how each solution was developed.
No reviews yetBe the first to leave a review for Humancode
Maker
📌
Hey Product Hunt 👋
I’m Cavidan, the maker of Humancode.
I built Humancode because AI coding tools have made technical hiring more complicated. A candidate may submit a correct solution, but the final answer alone often does not show whether they truly understood and solved the problem.
Humancode provides an AI-free environment for real-time coding competitions and technical assessments. There is no AI assistance or autocomplete in ranked matches or hiring assessments.
With Humancode, teams can:
• Create timed coding assessments
• Invite candidates without requiring an account
• Run C# and Python code in isolated sandboxes
• Review test results and solution progress
• Inspect integrity signals without automatic cheating accusations
• Replay supervised coding sessions to see how a solution evolved
The goal is not to replace human judgment. It is to give hiring teams better evidence and give developers a fair way to demonstrate their real problem-solving skills.
Humancode is live and ready to try today.
I’d love to hear your feedback: what would make you trust an online coding assessment?
Report
The replay feature is genuinely clever, watched back a friend's session and could actually see where they went off track. No autocomplete felt harsh at first but it makes the results way more trustworthy.
Report
Maker
@nerimand1c7 Thanks! Glad the replay helped. That’s exactly why we built it. No autocomplete can feel a bit rough at first, but it gives a much clearer picture of how someone actually solves problems.
Report
One thing I'd love to see is a built-in rubric editor where reviewers can score candidates on specific dimensions like readability, edge case handling, and time complexity right alongside the test results. Right now everything seems tied to pass/fail outcomes, but real engineering assessments usually need more nuance than that.
I wanted to keep the first version focused, but I agree that real engineering assessments need more than pass/fail. A structured rubric for things like readability, edge cases, and time complexity is definitely something I'd like to add.
Report
the no-account-needed invite flow is a really thoughtful choice, especially for candidates who ghost at the sign-up screen. love that you kept the focus on the raw editor experience instead of bolting on flashy AI crutches.
Report
Maker
@saadetcihaa03j Thanks! That was exactly the goal. I wanted candidates to focus on writing code, not getting through extra steps or relying on AI.
The replay feature is genuinely clever, watched back a friend's session and could actually see where they went off track. No autocomplete felt harsh at first but it makes the results way more trustworthy.
@nerimand1c7 Thanks! Glad the replay helped. That’s exactly why we built it. No autocomplete can feel a bit rough at first, but it gives a much clearer picture of how someone actually solves problems.
One thing I'd love to see is a built-in rubric editor where reviewers can score candidates on specific dimensions like readability, edge case handling, and time complexity right alongside the test results. Right now everything seems tied to pass/fail outcomes, but real engineering assessments usually need more nuance than that.
@ecegencogl26083 Thanks, that's a really good point.
I wanted to keep the first version focused, but I agree that real engineering assessments need more than pass/fail. A structured rubric for things like readability, edge cases, and time complexity is definitely something I'd like to add.
the no-account-needed invite flow is a really thoughtful choice, especially for candidates who ghost at the sign-up screen. love that you kept the focus on the raw editor experience instead of bolting on flashy AI crutches.
@saadetcihaa03j Thanks! That was exactly the goal. I wanted candidates to focus on writing code, not getting through extra steps or relying on AI.