Cheating on assessments and interviews isn’t new—it’s just evolved. Some candidates have always found ways to game the system, whether copying solutions from online forums, having someone else take the test, or now, using Generative AI to answer in real-time. What’s changed is how easy and accessible these tools have become. GenAI has made cheating faster and harder to detect, raising the stakes for companies trying to make confident hiring decisions. At CodeSignal, we’ve spent 10 years staying ahead of these tactics, continuously adapting our detection methods to protect interview integrity, even as the tools candidates use become more sophisticated. Here’s how we do it:
Suspicion Score
Suspicion Score is how we at CodeSignal flag potential instances of cheating to our customers. Whether a candidate tries to copy an answer from an online source or asks GenAI to create a solution for them, our Suspicion Score is a robust solution to flag potential integrity issues. Suspicion Score combines multiple factors into one model to assess whether a candidate’s submission represents their own work. These include:
Similarity score
CodeSignal compares candidates’ answers to all submissions on our platform and searches the web for similar solutions posted online.
Pattern detection
Our Suspicion Score dissects each solution to identify patterns across the millions of interviews and assessments conducted through our platform. We then flag candidate submissions that include patterns that may indicate the use of GenAI or other unauthorized resources.
Telemetry
We use telemetry from our advanced work simulations to reliably identify activities correlated with use of AI assistance, such as unusual typing or speaking patterns. This allows us to evaluate if a candidate’s behavior resembles that of someone working on their own.
Paste events
CodeSignal tracks when candidates copy and paste text from another window, and what was copied. Sometimes, these copy-paste events may not indicate cheating—for instance, if a candidate is referencing an approved resource—so we flag them for hiring team review.
With our one-of-a-kind Suspicion Score, we synthesize these factors to assign an overall trust level to each result, which gives companies confidence in their candidates’ results while flagging those that require further review.
Proctoring
At CodeSignal, we offer full-service proctoring for our assessments and interviews, with a review of the entire session to monitor for suspicious activity. We also use rigorous verification of government-issued IDs, as well as audio, video, and screen recording, to ensure a candidate is who they say they are and does not receive assistance from unauthorized outside resources.
Here’s how our proctoring process works:
Step 1: Candidate takes a proctored assessment or interview. Prior to starting the evaluation, the candidate is prompted to share their camera & microphone, screen, and a valid, government-issued photo ID. During the evaluation, CodeSignal records the candidate’s video, audio, and computer screen.
Step 2: CodeSignal reviews the recording. CodeSignal uses a blend of multiple AI reviews and human oversight to determine if there were any issues. If no rule violations or anomalies are detected, CodeSignal verifies the result.
Step 3: Hiring company notified of decision. Lastly, CodeSignal notifies the hiring company of the proctoring decision and receives an explanation for any rejected submissions. Results are delivered in as soon as one hour.
Dynamic question rotation
We use dynamic question rotation in our Certified Assessments to minimize the likelihood that any two candidates see the same questions. Our unique framework-based approach to creating questions enables us to create variations at scale, without compromising validity or introducing new levels of difficulty.
Leak Sweep
CodeSignal has a copyright on all of the content on our platform. Leak Sweep, our proprietary technology, searches for leaked questions and flags them to our team. Armed with this information, we can replace leaked questions and request DMCA takedowns to remove our questions from third party sites.
The numbers make it hard to ignore
Cheating isn’t an edge case anymore. In 2025, 35% of proctored assessments were flagged, more than double the rate from the year before. Entry-level hiring is the hardest hit, with a 40% cheating and fraud attempt rate. The gap between monitored and unmonitored assessments is just as telling: organizations without proctoring saw average score increases of 7.76%, compared to 1.78% for those using it.
Want to learn more?
As cheating and fraud continues to evolve, so do our methods of detecting and mitigating its use in assessments and interviews on our platform. If you’d like to learn more about the cheating prevention techniques described here, we’re happy to talk—set up a time to chat with one of our experts.