Brief the role
What great looks like, what you'd stretch for, what's non-negotiable. Plain language, no scorecards.
Singapore pool open · region next
The best hireisn't applying.
Brief her once. She finds, tests and interviews them. You meet a shortlist.
End to end
Sourcing, assessment and first interviews in one loop. No tools to operate.
Only yes
Everyone you meet has read the role and said they want it.
On hire
You pay when someone starts. Candidates never pay anything.
You didn't get more candidates. You got more text.
Applying costs nothing now, so everyone applies to everything. Your pile grew ten times and your signal went to zero — while the person you actually want never applied at all.
Your ATS, this weekINBOUND
1,247
applications for one role. Someone on your team has to open every one.
- Written or rewritten by AImost
- Distinguishable in six secondsnone
- Would actually take the jobunknown
- Contains the person you wantno
What Donna sends insteadCURATED
3
people, each asked individually, each having said yes to this specific role.
- Confirmed interestedall three
- Arrive with real contextall three
- Were going to apply anywaynone
- Rejections you have to sendzero
Everything between the brief and the offer.
Donna is not a sourcing tool you still have to operate. She runs the whole loop and hands you people, not profiles.
One brief in. A shortlist worth meeting out.
One brief. Six things happen.
Ten minutes from you. Everything after it is hers, until there is a shortlist.
She pushes back
Talent intelligence: what this market can actually give you, and where your brief is screening out the people you'd have hired.
She finds people
She's spoken to everyone in the pool, so she matches on what they built and what would move them — including people who aren't looking.
She asks them privately
One by one, with a reason. No name reaches you unless that person says yes.
She tests and interviews
A work sample written from your brief and your stack, scored on the submission. Then a first interview against the same standard.
You get a shortlist
A few people, each with the evidence, the concerns and the open questions attached. You interview, and you decide.
Role brief
Founding Engineer, Payments. Small team, 11 people. Owns reconciliation
end to end. I care more about someone who has debugged a broken ledger at 2am
than about years of experience.
Talent intelligence
You asked for 3+ years at a larger fintech. In Singapore that's about
40 people, and most of them won't move to an 11-person team.
D
Make it evidence of shipping payments work instead and the pool goes to 380 — including the two strongest people I know.
Update the brief
Keep as is
Searching 4,120 profiles
Candidate Abuilt recon engine · not looking
Candidate Bledger team · wants scope
Candidate Cpayments ops → eng
Candidate Dwon't join under 20
Candidate Ekeyword match only
Candidate Fleaving Singapore
Asking 6 people
A
“A team of 11 needs someone who has actually fixed reconciliation. You have. Worth a look?”
Interested
B
“You said you'd move for scope rather than title. This is scope.”
Interested
D
“Small team, 11 people.”
PassedTest written for this role
Work sample GENERATED
Here are 4,000 real settlement rows with three classes of mismatch. Reconcile them, then say which breaks you'd page someone for at 2am.
Candidate A SCORED
Submission
Caught all three. Flagged a fourth we planted.First interview
Explained the tradeoff unprompted. Thin on on-call experience.Shortlist · 3 of 4,120
Candidate A WORTH MEETING
Evidence
Wrote the matching engine alone. Ops time down 31%. Top test score.Reason to hesitate
Never been on call. Volunteered it before I asked.Open question
Would they still want this in two years, or is it a stepping stone?Plan around
Eight lighter weeks at FYP submission.What actually reaches your inbox.
Not profiles. Not scores. People, with the reasoning attached.
People who already said yes
They've read the role and want it. Nobody arrives cold.
The evidence behind the fit
What they built, how, and what it changed. Not a job title.
Their actual test submission
You read the work, not a percentage.
Reasons to hesitate
Where they're thin, stated plainly, before you spend an hour.
Open questions worth asking
What she couldn't settle, handed to you for the interview.
What to plan around
ICT cycles, exam weeks, exchange semesters, whether they need an EP sponsored. Known before you interview.
The test is written for your role. Not pulled off a shelf.
Generic assessments measure who practised for generic assessments. Donna builds the test from your brief, your stack and your actual problem.
A GENERIC ASSESSMENT
Reverse a linked list in 30 minutes.
Pick the odd one out.
Rate your teamwork from 1 to 5.
Measures who has seen the question before.
WHAT DONNA WRITES FOR YOU
Here are 4,000 settlement rows with three classes of mismatch in them.
Reconcile them, then tell me which breaks you'd page someone for at 2am and which can wait until Monday.
Scored on the submission and the judgement, by something that read your brief.
She runs the process. You make the hire.
Full stack does not mean automated hiring. The decision never leaves your team.
Donna owns the work
- Calibrating the brief, and pushing back on it
- Talent intelligence on what the market can give you
- Finding people, including the ones not looking
- Asking them privately, one by one
- Designing and scoring the work sample
- Running the first interview
- Scheduling, chasing and following through
No ATS to buy. No sourcing seat. No assessment vendor.
Your team owns the call
- Setting what good looks like
- The interview that matters
- The relationship
- The offer
- The decision, always
The obvious questions.
How is this different from a sourcing tool or an agency?
A sourcing tool searches text candidates wrote to be searched. A recruiter knows a few dozen people and messages the rest cold. Donna has actually spoken to everyone in the pool, and asks them privately before you ever see a name.
Do we still need an ATS, a sourcing tool or an assessment vendor?
Not for the loop Donna runs. She owns calibration, talent intelligence, finding, asking, the work sample, the first interview and the coordination. Your team sets the standard, does the interview that matters, and makes every hiring decision.
How is the test actually written for our role?
From your brief and your stack, not a question bank. If the job is reconciliation at scale, the sample is a real reconciliation problem with real failure modes in it. You see the submission, not just a score, and the same test goes to everyone considered.
Why only Singapore and Southeast Asia?
Because depth beats coverage. Knowing almost every early-career engineer, analyst and designer in one market is worth more to you than a thin index of everywhere. It also means she understands what actually governs a hire here: NS and remaining ICT cycles, whether someone needs an EP sponsored, exchange semesters, FYP timing, and who would genuinely move to KL or Jakarta. A tool trained on the US market does not know any of that exists.
What does it cost?
You pay when you hire. Candidates never pay, which is what keeps them honest with her. Email us for the numbers on your role.
Can you really reach people who aren't looking?
That's the design. People talk to Donna to keep a live profile, not because they're job hunting. Most of the pool isn't on the market on any given day — which is why they read her message instead of deleting it.
How many candidates will I see?
Few, deliberately. If two people genuinely fit, you get two, and she tells you the brief is too narrow rather than padding the list.
Do you cover senior roles, or only students?
Any stage, but we are deliberately deep rather than broad: Singapore early-career first, then the region. That is where we can credibly say we know almost everyone worth knowing. Send a senior brief and we'll tell you straight whether we can fill it.
What about bias and fairness?
Same questions and the same work sample for everyone considered. Candidates can read and correct everything Donna holds, and nothing reaches you without their consent for that specific role.
Tell her about the role you can't fill.
Ten minutes of brief. She comes back with people who already said yes.