Senior Software Engineer, AI Training - NZ

<p style="min-height:1.5em">Contract | Remote, worldwide | $100-$200/hour depending on experience and location | 10-20 hrs/week</p><p style="min-height:1.5em"></p><p style="min-height:1.5em">Please note that eligibility may vary depending on your location, as some regions may not be supported by the client.</p><p style="min-height:1.5em"></p><p style="min-height:1.5em"><strong>Check out this Loom video for more details: </strong><a target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer nofollow" href="https://www.loom.com/share/b0d1b0bf24c44ae8b95dca84b9db60e5">https://www.loom.com/share/b0d1b0bf24c44ae8b95dca84b9db60e5</a></p><p style="min-height:1.5em"></p><p style="min-height:1.5em">We're looking for highly experienced software engineer (SR+) to help evaluate the quality of interactions with modern coding agents such as OpenAI Codex and Claude Code.</p><p style="min-height:1.5em"></p><p style="min-height:1.5em">This is not a traditional engineering role. You won't be writing production code. You'll be evaluating something harder: whether the model thinks like a great engineer.</p><p style="min-height:1.5em"></p><h2><strong>What this role actually is</strong></h2><p style="min-height:1.5em">You will assess how AI coding agents behave in real-world scenarios, focusing on:</p><p style="min-height:1.5em">• Whether the response makes sense</p><p style="min-height:1.5em">• Whether the preamble and reasoning are useful</p><p style="min-height:1.5em">• Whether the output reflects strong engineering judgment</p><p style="min-height:1.5em">• Whether the interaction feels right to an experienced developer</p><p style="min-height:1.5em">This role is about engineering taste. Syntax correctness is the easy part.</p><p style="min-height:1.5em"></p><h2><strong>What you'll be doing</strong></h2><p style="min-height:1.5em">• Evaluate AI-generated coding interactions end to end</p><p style="min-height:1.5em">• Judge whether outputs are useful, correct at a high level, and aligned with how a strong engineer would think</p><p style="min-height:1.5em">• Assess the quality of explanations and reasoning, not just the code</p><p style="min-height:1.5em">• Distinguish between levels of response quality (what makes something a 2 vs a 4)</p><p style="min-height:1.5em">• Give clear, opinionated feedback in writing on what worked, what didn't, and what felt off or misleading</p><p style="min-height:1.5em">• Help define what great looks like when working with tools like Cursor, Codex and Claude Code</p><p style="min-height:1.5em"></p><h2><strong>What we mean by "taste"</strong></h2><p style="min-height:1.5em">We're looking for engineers who can answer questions like:</p><p style="min-height:1.5em">• Does this feel like something a strong engineer would actually say?</p><p style="min-height:1.5em">• Is this explanation helpful, or just technically correct?</p><p style="min-height:1.5em">• Is the model guiding the user well, or just dumping output?</p><p style="min-height:1.5em">• Would this interaction build or erode trust?</p><p style="min-height:1.5em">You should be comfortable making subjective but rigorous judgments, and explaining them clearly.</p><p style="min-height:1.5em&q