0→1 interview platform. Sole designer from day one.
A complete product vision with no screens, no flows, and no design system.
Designed the full product in 1 month as the sole designer
Sinta came to me through Upwork. Two founders, one month, zero existing screens. The product had five interconnected flows: interview builder, scheduling, live interview, post-interview review, and scorecard. None of them were designed. I worked through all of them from founder conversations.
This page covers the core flows I designed and the decisions behind them. The final product was further developed after the engagement ended.
The problem
Interview software either captured structure or captured humanity, not both. Video interviews happened in one tool, scorecards in another, job descriptions in a third. Interviewers split attention between conducting a real conversation and tabbing through forms. Sinta's premise: give interviewers a way to capture structured data during a live call without breaking eye contact with the candidate, then surface everything in one place for review.
The work
Worked directly from founder conversations. No existing product to reference, no user research to draw from. Each flow started as a discussion and turned into screens the founders could react to. The live interview screen took the most iteration. The challenge was input density: interviewers needed to flag competencies and reactions in real time during a video call without the UI becoming the interruption. The answer was shortcut buttons over forms. One tap to timestamp a competency or reaction. Everything else waits until after the call. The post-interview review screen had a similar tension: how much can one screen hold before it collapses? Three columns kept every artifact visible at the same time: video with timestamps, transcript alongside the job description, evaluation form and candidate profile. Dense on purpose. Reviewers could see the candidate, the evidence, and the scorecard in the same glance.
Core flows
The interview builder let hiring teams construct a full pipeline by adding stages: screening, panel, debrief, assessment, presentation. Each stage had its own configuration. The founders needed this to be fast to set up and easy to reorder.
Live Interview Screen
The live interview screen was the most complex view. Interviewers could tag competencies and reactions in real time while the call was running, timestamping each one to the video. The goal was to capture signal without breaking eye contact with the candidate.
Post-Interview Review
After the interview, the three-column layout let reviewers replay the video alongside the transcript, compare candidate answers against the job description, and submit a structured evaluation. Everything in one screen without switching tabs.
Candidate Scorecard
The scorecard gave hiring teams a structured comparison across candidates. Flag counts, ratings, and decisions in a single table. The final decision selector let HR make the call without hunting through separate review threads.
Key design decisions
Shortcut buttons over forms for live annotation
Interviewers needed to capture structured notes during a live video call without breaking eye contact. A form requires too much attention mid-conversation.
One-tap shortcut buttons to timestamp a competency or reaction instantly. No typing during the call. All context gets added during post-interview review.
The live moment is the moment that can't be recovered. Anything that interrupts it is a cost. The shortcuts had to feel like a reflex, not a tool.
Three columns: everything in one screen
Post-interview review requires three reference points: the recorded video, the transcript with job description context, and the evaluation form. Switching tabs for each one fragments the review.
Three-column layout: video and timestamps on the left, transcript and job description in the middle, evaluation form and candidate profile on the right. One screen, no switching.
Reviewers make better evaluations when they can see the evidence and the scorecard in the same glance. The density was intentional.
Modular stages over fixed templates
Hiring pipelines vary by company and role type. A fixed interview template forces teams to work around it.
Stage-based builder where each stage type (screening, panel, debrief, assessment, presentation) has its own configuration. Teams build the pipeline they actually run.
Making pipeline structure visible and editable upfront was one of the things that differentiated Sinta from ATS tools where customization is buried in settings.
Reflection
I left before knowing how it landed. The founders hired a design agency to build on what I started, which is how 0→1 work usually goes. Your job is to give the next person something solid. The one thing I'd change: I designed entirely from founder conversations, no user research. The live interview screen especially would have benefited from watching real interviewers run sessions. I had a strong instinct about what the UI needed to do, but instinct isn't evidence. Next time I'd push for one or two user conversations before designing the hardest flow.