Hi Product Hunt, I'm Mark, solo founder of RoleSage.

I built it because AI broke hiring from both directions at once. Hiring teams are buried in applications that all look great. Candidates write the best application of their lives and still vanish into the pile.

That's the avalanche. Volume went up, polish went up, signal went down. A sharp resume and a tailored cover letter used to tell you something. Now they tell you the candidate has the same tools as everyone else. Hirers can't find the strong people. The strong people can't be found. Both sides lose the same thing: signal.

Almost everything I looked at picks a side: better filtering for employers, or better application tooling for candidates. I don't think either works on its own, because the signal is the thing shared between them. So RoleSage is built to serve both sides, equally.

For candidates, it's a profile you own and edit, where your skills connect to the activities, outcomes, and examples behind them. What you have actually done carries the weight, not how well it was written up.

For hiring teams, it's a light ATS for roles, openings, applicants, interviews, and outcomes, with explainable match bands, the context supporting each one, the gaps, and the questions worth asking next.

Same evidence layer, both ends of it. Candidates can see and improve the representation being assessed, instead of guessing what a filter did with it.

AI is there to help, to organise, and coach; people decide, humans are in control.

Candidate access is free at its core. Every new employer gets one opening credit to run a real hiring workflow before paying.

Three things I would genuinely love feedback on:

1. Does the problem resonate with you?

2. If you are a candidate, does this feel like more control over how you are represented, or just more work?

3. If you hire, what would you need to see before trying this on a real opening?

I'll be here through the launch window and will answer as directly as I can. Thanks for taking a look.