Generic ATS submissions
Look like body-shop output.
Greenhouse / Bullhorn-shaped exports are functional but generic. They don’t carry the agency’s judgement or branding, and they push the per-candidate fit narrative back onto the client.
AI screening for recruiting agencies
AI screening with the partner’s final say.
Your clients pay for the partner’s judgement, not for a black-box AI fit score. ShortlistTable does the AI read; the partner reviews each verdict, overrides where needed, and ships a client-branded submission pack with per-candidate evidence. AI does the reading. The partner makes the call.
Client-branded packs · Per-criterion evidence · Per-client retention
shortlisttable.app / agencyfirm-workspace
Active roles · AgencyFirm Workspace
- Shortlist readyVP of Engineering · ClientARetained · 42 candidates
- ScreeningDirector of Sales · ClientBRetained · 28 candidates
- Needs reviewHead of Ops · ClientCContingent · 60 candidates
- ScreeningCFO · ClientDRetained · 18 candidates
Workspace summary
12
Active searches
4
Shortlists delivered
≤ 24h
Submission turnaround
6
Partners
Per-client
Workspace + retention
Branded
Submission packs
Per-search
Custom rubrics
24h
Typical submission turnaround
What clients actually want
Clients pay for the judgement around the shortlist.
Recruiting agencies are paid for the curation, the narrative, and the speed. A raw CSV export of 50 candidates is the opposite of that — it pushes the work back onto the client and makes the agency look like a body shop.
We give you a workflow that produces what the client expects: a per-client workspace, a client-branded submission pack, and per-candidate fit narratives backed by evidence from the resume. The shortlist arrives looking like the work of a senior partner, not the output of a tool.
Per-client retention rules
Different clients, different rules.
Some clients require 90-day data retention, others 30, others demand hard-delete on close. Managing this in a shared sheet or generic ATS is a compliance time bomb.
Partner-led judgement
The model doesn’t get the final say.
At an agency, the partner’s read on the candidate is the product. The screening tool exists to surface evidence faster — not to substitute its own judgement for the partner’s.
Agency-grade workflow
What ships in a client-grade pack.
01 · Feature
Per-client workspaces
Each client engagement gets its own workspace with isolated candidate data, per-engagement retention, and per-client access control.
Workspace per clientPer-client retentionHard-delete on close
02 · Feature
Client-branded submission packs
XLSX submission packs with your firm’s logo and brand colours. Optional cover note from the engagement partner. The client sees your firm, not a generic tool.
LogoBrand colourPartner cover note
03 · Feature
Per-candidate fit narratives
Each candidate gets a short fit summary derived from the screening columns — editable by the partner before submission. No more drafting from scratch.
Generated narrative“Alice meets all 5 must-haves with 7 years of platform engineering at Ledger; partner override notes Series-B stage fit.”
04 · Feature
Per-search rubrics
Each search has its own screening columns. The VP of Engineering rubric and the Director of Sales rubric are completely independent.
VP Eng rubric
Director Sales rubric
Head Ops rubric
05 · Feature
Partner override on every cell
Engagement partner reviews and edits any verdict before the pack goes out. AI gathers evidence; partner makes the call.
AI: review · 0.62
Partner: Strong (note)
06 · Feature
Multi-partner access
Multiple partners can collaborate on a single search with full activity tracking — for split commission reporting and engagement-level oversight.
Partner A sources→Partner B reviews→Partner C signs off
How it compares
Agency-grade screening vs the alternatives.
| Property | Generic ATS | Per-search sheet | Black-box AI | ShortlistTable |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Per-client workspace + retention | –Manual | ✕Trust-based | ✕Limited | ✓First-class |
| Client-branded submission | ✕Generic | –Manual | ✕Not supported | ✓XLSX with branding |
| Per-candidate fit narratives | ✕Manual | ✕Manual | –Score-based | ✓Generated + editable |
| Partner-editable verdicts | –Limited | ✓Yes | ✕No | ✓Full audit trail |
| Per-search rubrics | –Schema-bound | ✓Manual | –Templates | ✓Plain English |
✓ Supported– Partial / manual✕ Not supported
FAQ
Common questions from agency partners.
How does this fit alongside our existing ATS (Bullhorn / Vincere / Invenias)?+
Most of our agency users keep their ATS for stages / commission / pipeline management and use ShortlistTable purely at the screening step. The CSV / XLSX submission packs are the deliverable; the ATS data stays in the ATS.
Can I white-label the submission pack?+
Yes — logo, brand colour, cover-page text, and footer are all configured per workspace. The client sees your firm’s branding, not ours.
How is per-client retention handled?+
Each workspace has its own retention policy — auto-archive after N days, hard-delete after M days. Different clients can have different rules in the same agency tenant.
Can multiple partners work on the same search?+
Yes — multi-partner ownership of a single search is supported, with per-partner activity tracking for split commission reporting and engagement-level oversight.
Does the partner have final say on every verdict?+
Yes. Every cell is partner-overridable, and overrides are surfaced in the submission pack and the audit log. The AI provides evidence; the partner makes the call.
How is pricing structured for agencies?+
Per-workspace plans with monthly resume volume. The Agency tier is built around 6–20 partners and 10+ active searches; talk to us for custom volumes.
Look like the firm you are
Ship a client-grade shortlist next engagement.
Try ShortlistTable on a 25-resume pile. See the workspace, the submission pack, the partner override flow.