AI for people and HR, across 4 workflow patterns.

For roles with high application volume, reads each resume against a structured definition of what the role actually requires, scores the fit, and produces a shortlist with reasoning for each ranking. Different from generic ATS scoring because the pattern works against an explicit role specification co-authored with the hiring manager, not against vague keyword matching, and because every shortlist comes with the why — the specific signals that put each candidate where they are. Pre-screens for disparate impact at the cohort level and refuses to make 'hire/no-hire' calls; final decisions stay with humans. The pattern's value is letting hiring teams give every applicant a thoughtful first look, even when volume would normally make that impossible.

Handles the operational work of moving candidates through the interview pipeline: finds interview slots that work for everyone, schedules and reschedules as needed, sends clear and timely communications to candidates at every stage, drafts personalized rejection notes when needed. Different from generic scheduling tools because the pattern keeps the candidate experience tone consistent with the firm's brand and adapts to the role and stage. Reduces the operational drag of hiring that often falls on already-busy recruiters or hiring managers.

A focused assistant employees can ask about HR policies, benefits, time off, expense rules, conduct policies — anything in the employee handbook and surrounding policy documents. Different from C7 (general internal search) and C11 (legal/contract Q&A) in that it's tuned for employee-facing questions: it knows when to give a direct answer and when to route to a People Ops person, it handles sensitive questions (compensation, performance issues, harassment) with appropriate care, and it gives benefit-specific answers that depend on the asker's plan, country, or tenure. The pattern's value is offloading the predictable 70% of HR questions from People Ops while making sure the other 30% reaches a human safely.

Helps managers write structured performance reviews by synthesizing the evidence already captured throughout the period: project outcomes, peer feedback, 1:1 notes, goals progress. Drafts a first version of each review section the manager edits to their voice and judgment. Catches common pitfalls (one-incident bias, recency effect, vague language, missing examples) and prompts the manager to add specifics. Never makes the rating decision — that stays entirely with the human. The pattern's value is reducing the slog of review-writing while improving review quality, particularly for managers with many direct reports who would otherwise write thin reviews under time pressure.