Cursor, Copilot, Claude Code, Windsurf — every team has landed on something different, and most candidates only know one. For 10+ years we've placed engineers with 70+ businesses who are genuinely fluent across the major AI pair-programming tools, so they plug into your workflow instead of adjusting to it.
These are the hiring problems teams run into.
Most candidates only know the one tool from their last job.
Switching tools mid-project stalls a new hire's ramp-up.
You can't tell from a résumé who actually codes faster with AI help, versus slower.
Accepting every suggestion blindly quietly degrades code quality.
Traditional hiring takes months while your roadmap keeps slipping.
A mis-hire here costs weeks of rework on top of the wasted salary.
You shouldn't have to pick between a great engineer and one who's fluent in your specific AI tooling. We place people who are both.
If your team already runs Cursor, Copilot or Claude Code, this is for you.
Everyone codes in Cursor or Copilot and new hires need to be productive on day one.
You need velocity now and can't afford someone still learning the tooling.
You're migrating from one AI tool to another and need someone who adapts fast.
Each problem above maps to how we staff. Here's how we fix it.
We match on fluency across Cursor, Copilot, Claude Code and Windsurf — not one tool memorized.
We place people who already work the way your team does, so day one is productive, not a training day.
Candidates work live with the tool in front of our engineers, so speed and quality are both proven.
Every hire reviews and edits AI suggestions — they use the tool, it doesn't use them.
We shortlist from an existing pool of pre-vetted candidates, so you interview in days, not months.
If your team changes tools next year, the same hire adapts instead of needing replacement.
Our own teams build daily across Cursor, Copilot and Claude Code, so we know exactly which parts of each workflow separate a fast, careful engineer from someone just clicking "accept." For 10+ years and 70+ clients, that's the bar we vet to.
Book a Talent Call →The same hire, three very different outcomes.
We scope your stack, tooling and start date — no cost, no obligation.
We match candidates fluent in your specific tool.
See real speed and judgment live in your interview.
Your hire joins the codebase fast and starts contributing immediately.
They're consistently professional and helpful — their work is top-notch and I wouldn't hesitate to recommend them.
Cursor, GitHub Copilot, Claude Code, Windsurf and others — our engineers are tool-agnostic and adapt to whatever your team already standardizes on, rather than pushing their own preference.
Not with the right engineer. We place developers who use these tools to move faster on boilerplate and exploration, while still owning architecture decisions and reviewing every suggestion before it ships.
Yes. Because they're fluent across multiple tools rather than dependent on one, switching is a short adjustment, not a retraining project.
We match from an existing vetted pool, so you're typically interviewing within days and can have someone contributing to your codebase shortly after.
Both. Many clients start on contract to prove fit on real work, then convert strong performers to permanent.
Book a talent call — we'll scope your tool and stack, and match you with a proven engineer.