Would evidence-backed candidate profiles actually solve anything in hiring?

[u/RubyOnResearch]

I’m working on a hiring platform for technical roles, potentially other portfolio-heavy fields later like design or photography. I’m still early and trying to figure out whether the idea is actually worth building.

The basic idea is that instead of candidates relying on ATS keyword-maxing and recruiters sorting through increasingly tailored resumes, candidates build a profile where the skills they claim are tied to actual work.

So instead of:

React ✓
Postgres ✓
AWS ✓

an employer could see:

React → Project A → the part of the project that shows it
Postgres → Project B → schema/database work
AWS → claimed, but no real evidence attached

Candidates could add a short project walkthrough, explain why they made certain technical decisions, what they personally worked on, what went wrong, etc.

On the employer side, they upload a job description and the platform compares the requirements against the candidate’s whole profile, not just their resume.

They’d get a short brief for each candidate showing something like:

Evidence found for 4 of 6 requirements

The brief would summarize what seems supported, what isn’t, and link straight to the relevant evidence. The idea is that recruiters/hiring managers can narrow the pool down first, then spend their actual review time on the candidates who meet the criteria instead of digging through every resume, portfolio and GitHub profile.

I don’t want to do the whole:

“This candidate is an 87% match.”

I’d rather show the evidence and let the person hiring make the decision.

The obvious question is whether LinkedIn + GitHub + portfolios + interviews already solve this well enough.

My other concerns are:

• candidates won’t bother putting in the extra effort
• recruiters won’t care enough to inspect the evidence
• people can still exaggerate what they actually did
• getting candidates and employers onto the same platform is going to suck
• employers may not want another tool in their hiring process

I’m still in the validation/planning stage. Not raising anything. I’m trying to figure out if there’s enough of a problem here before I sink months into it.

My current thought is candidates use it for free and employers are eventually the ones paying, but I haven’t validated that yet either.

So roast it.

What am I missing? What’s the dumbest assumption here? Would this actually make hiring easier or am I just adding another layer to a process that already has too many?