I built Mandorka because a CV proves almost nothing
Most hiring still starts with a document full of claims.
“I’m good at operations.”
“I know how to work with AI.”
“I’m a strong problem solver.”
The problem is that none of those statements actually prove anything.
That’s why I built Mandorka.
Mandorka lets people complete short, job-relevant work challenges and turn the result into a public, verifiable WorkProof.
Employers can verify that evidence directly and can also define what kind of WorkProof they want to see for a specific role before interviewing candidates.
I deliberately didn’t want to build another CV builder, AI recruiter or black-box candidate scoring system.
The idea is much simpler:
Do the work. Prove the skill.
Mandorka is live now.
I’m still at the very beginning — no huge user numbers, no inflated launch story. I’m looking for the first people who are willing to actually use it and tell me where it works, where it doesn’t, and what would make it genuinely useful.
If you’re a founder, recruiter, hiring manager or job seeker, I’d especially love your feedback.
What would make you trust a WorkProof more than a line on a CV?
-
1Quick desktop first-screen read: the promise is clear—Mandorka turns a job-relevant simulation into a verifiable WorkProof, and “Claims are cheap. Proof is not.” fits the product. The trust gap I hit is inside the proof example itself. The 86/100 “Live verified” card in the hero is not clickable; /workproof repeats the same values, while /verify asks me to bring my own proof ID and the API example still shows . So I could not tell whether 86/100 is an inspectable live record or an illustrative example. I would make that card do one of two things: label it “Example,” or link it to one real canonical proof record with the challenge version, timestamp, dimensions, and hash visible. That demonstrates record integrity without claiming the harder thing—whether the score predicts job performance. Your current validation copy is already careful about that distinction, so I would keep it.4 days ago Reply
-
1This is excellent feedback — and you’re right. The 86/100 card is currently illustrative, but “Live verified” makes that distinction too ambiguous. I’m going to fix that. My preference is not just to label it as an example, but to make the hero point to a real canonical demo WorkProof that anyone can inspect, including the assessment version, timestamp, dimensions and proof fingerprint. Thanks for catching the trust gap.4 days ago Reply
-
-
1The harder test seems to be whether employers actually change their hiring process around WorkProof. Have any employers used the evidence to make a different interview decision yet?4 days ago Reply
-
1Not yet — Mandorka is very early, and that is exactly the next thing I want to validate. The infrastructure is live; now I’m looking for a small number of employers willing to use WorkProof with a real role and tell me whether it actually changes who they interview or how they evaluate candidates. If you’re hiring, I’d be very interested in testing that with you.4 days ago Reply
-
1I’m not hiring right now, but the real-role test is exactly the evidence that would make this interesting. Happy to continue the conversation privately — what’s the best email to reach you on?4 days ago Reply
-
-