For recruitment agencies
An agency sells judgement about people. Verified scores make that judgement checkable, which is uncomfortable for some agencies and a significant advantage for the good ones.
CalHire’s agency workspace lets a recruitment agency build a verified talent pool once and submit candidates to multiple client companies under its own brand. Each client gets a separate workspace with its own data boundary, candidates remain anonymous until a consented reveal, and placements are tracked in a commission ledger. The candidate’s verified skills profile is portable across the agency’s clients without being re-tested for each.
Last reviewed
The short version
- One verified pool, many clients. A candidate assessed once can be submitted to several roles without retesting.
- Client workspaces are isolated from each other, so one client cannot see another’s pipeline or your pool.
- Submissions stay anonymous until reveal, which protects both the candidate and your relationship with them.
- Placement commissions are tracked in a ledger rather than reconciled from email.
What changes when the score is verifiable
An agency’s core product has always been a claim: this person is worth your time. Clients cannot check it cheaply, so they price in the risk, negotiate the fee, and quietly discount everything an agency tells them. That dynamic is bad for agencies who are actually good at this.
A verified skills profile changes the conversation. The claim comes with evidence attached that the client can read directly, on the same scale for every candidate, from any source. What the agency contributes is what it should have been selling all along: knowing which candidate suits which team, which role is actually open versus theoretically open, and which client will move fast enough to keep a good candidate engaged.
It is worth saying plainly that this is not comfortable for everyone. An agency whose margin depends on the client’s inability to evaluate submissions will find verified scoring unhelpful. An agency whose margin depends on judgement and speed gets a much better argument for its fee.
How the workspace is built
A pool you own
Candidates you have sourced and assessed, with verified scores per skill and their expiry dates. Rediscovery surfaces people already in the pool who match a new role.
Separate client workspaces
Each client is its own boundary. One client cannot see another’s roles, pipeline or feedback, and neither can see your pool except through what you submit.
Anonymous submissions
Candidates go to a client anonymously and are revealed only on consent, to that client. This is also the cleanest available answer to candidate poaching.
Your brand
White-label surfaces on your domain. Candidates experience your agency rather than a platform you happen to use.
A commission ledger
Placements and the fees attached to them, recorded as they happen. What you invoice reconciles against a record rather than against memory.
Scores that expire
Ninety-day validity applies here too. A pool with dated scores is a pool a client can trust; a pool of two-year-old results is a spreadsheet.
A placement, end to end
- 1
You source and assess once
The candidate takes the baseline assessment and joins your pool with a verified profile. This is the only test they sit, however many of your clients they are eventually submitted to.
- 2
A client opens a role
In their own workspace, with their own weights and requirements. You see the role; other clients do not.
- 3
You submit anonymously
The client evaluates a verified, anonymous candidate against their own criteria. Your judgement about fit travels with the submission; the candidate’s identity does not.
- 4
Reveal, then placement
The client requests identity at an allowed stage and the candidate consents. The placement and its commission are recorded in the ledger.
What this does not do
It does not stop a client hiring a candidate outside the platform after a reveal. No software prevents that. What the ledger provides is a dated, mutual record of who was submitted, when, and by whom, which is the evidence a fee dispute actually turns on.
It does not replace your relationships. Sourcing, knowing which client is serious, and managing a candidate through a slow process are the work. This makes the evidence portable and the admin lighter.
A shared pool is not a shared candidate. Each submission requires the candidate’s participation, and each reveal requires their consent for that specific client. An agency wanting to circulate CVs to twenty companies without asking should not use this.
Very small or highly specialised pools weaken anonymity. In a market with a handful of qualified people, a client may recognise a candidate from their skill profile alone. Anonymity is a probabilistic protection and it thins as the pool does.
Questions people actually ask
Can one client see candidates we submitted to another?
Does a candidate retake the assessment for each client?
How are commissions calculated?
Can we use our own branding with candidates?
What stops a client from poaching a candidate before a fee is due?
Can we bring an existing candidate database?
Related
Where this connects to the rest of the platform.
Verified skills assessment
One supervised assessment produces a skills profile an employer can check, instead of a resume they have to take on trust.
Identity broker and staged reveal
CalHire holds the candidate’s identity. An employer requests it, the candidate consents or declines, and consent releases it to that one employer with an immutable record.
ATS integration and the public API
Deep connectors for Workday, Greenhouse, Lever and SAP SuccessFactors, a generic webhook connector, and a REST API. Identity syncs only after a reveal.
Read the reasoning
The evidence and the argument behind what is on this page.
What skills-based hiring actually is (and what it is not)
Skills-based hiring decides on demonstrated ability, not proxies like degrees or job titles. What it means in practice, where it fails, and how to run it well.
ReadDoes an ATS really reject your résumé? What actually happens
The "75% of résumés are rejected by robots" claim has no verifiable source. What an ATS actually does, where filtering really happens, and what to do about it.
ReadTime-to-hire is a throughput metric. Quality-of-hire is the one that matters
Speed metrics are easy to collect and easy to game. How to measure whether your hiring decisions were any good, and which metrics to pair with which.
ReadSee a verified pipeline for one of your roles
Post a role free and review anonymous, skill-ranked candidates. No card, no sales call to get started.