Training for AI engineers with closable gaps
Most hiring processes end at the gap. This one starts there. If the assessment finds something specific standing between you and the roles you want, the gap becomes a curriculum — and the curriculum ends with the assessment running again.
Ajai GeorgeLast updated
The plan comes from your gap, not a catalogue page
A curriculum is assembled after the assessment, against the dimension that is actually holding you back and the domain you work in. Two engineers with the same composite can get different plans, because the thing limiting each of them is different.
Each module names the gap it targets, carries a time estimate so you can decide whether to commit, and ends in something you have built rather than something you have watched.
What a module asks of you
Five stages, in order. You do not skip to the end.
- 1Learn
- Work through the material for the specific gap the assessment named.
- 2Checkpoint
- Ten questions on what you just covered. Seven correct to pass, and a failed attempt is recorded before you retry.
- 3Build
- Ship a real project against a written brief, and submit the repository.
- 4Defend
- Answer questions generated from your own repository — its README, its topics, what you actually did.
- 5Re-score
- The portfolio assessment runs again, over a footprint that now includes the work.
Why a certificate from us is awkward to fake
A credential is only worth what it costs to obtain dishonestly. Three things here are deliberately inconvenient.
The repository must be new
A submitted project is checked against when your curriculum started. Pointing at something you built two years ago does not pass — the repository has to have been created or pushed after you began.
You defend your own code
The defend questions are generated from the repository you submitted, not from a question bank. They are about your decisions, which is difficult to answer convincingly about code you did not write.
Attempts are on the record
A failed checkpoint is recorded before you retry. Retrying is fine and expected; quietly erasing the first attempt is not available.
You are not doing it alone
Engineers working through a curriculum are placed in a cohort, capped at twelve people, with a weekly peer review of what each member shipped.
Twelve is small on purpose. A cohort large enough to hide in is a cohort where nobody reviews anybody.
What we are not claiming
We are not going to tell you what this does to your score on average, or quote a completion rate, or put a number on how much faster you will get hired. The programme has not been running long enough for any of those to be honest, and a figure invented to fill the gap would be worth less than the silence.
What we can tell you is exactly what it asks of you, which is everything above.