Most hiring software is built for recruiting departments. Reordinal is not.
It is built for the founders, hiring managers, and lean people teams who do hiring on top of their actual job — and who, in 2026, get most of their applicants from LinkedIn Easy Apply.
This post is the short version of why that distinction mattered enough to build a product around.
The thing nobody is fixing
Open a LinkedIn job today. Within a week, you have 200 applicants. Within two, you might have 600. Some of them are great. Most of them are not. And there is no way, inside LinkedIn, to figure out which is which without clicking into every single profile, reading the resume, scrolling through the screening answers, and remembering — somehow, with no notes — what you thought of the last forty.
So people do one of three things:
- They give up and read the first thirty applicants.
- They copy-paste names into a spreadsheet and try to grade them.
- They forward the list to whoever has time and hope.
None of these are working. The 10–50 person companies we kept talking to all had the same complaint: we are not short on applicants. We are short on a way to actually review them.
That is a different problem from the one most ATS tools were built to solve.
What enterprise ATS tools assume
Enterprise ATS tools assume you have a recruiting team. They assume there is a pipeline manager, a sourcer, a coordinator, an interview loop with five engineers, and a hiring committee. They are built around requisitions, approval chains, and seat-based licensing. The setup phase alone takes weeks.
If that describes your company, those tools are great. If you are a founder reviewing applicants between sales calls, they are absurd.
The wrong shape of tool means you stop using it. Most lean teams either over-invest in something they will never operate, or they fall back to spreadsheets and Slack. Both end the same way: hiring decisions made on incomplete information, with no record of what anyone actually thought.
What Reordinal does differently
Reordinal starts from the assumption that:
- The applicant volume is already there. LinkedIn Easy Apply solved that.
- The reviewer is probably you, plus one or two teammates who are also busy.
- The problem is reading carefully — not sourcing, not scheduling.
So the product is shaped around the LinkedIn-applicant-to-shortlist workflow specifically:
- A Chrome extension imports applicants from LinkedIn jobs you control. No password sharing.
- Each candidate gets an AI-generated summary, fit score, and explanation tied to your job description.
- Your team can leave notes, override AI scores, and shortlist together.
- Every decision stays attached to the role, so the next time you hire for something similar, you have institutional memory.
Pricing is per job, not per seat. Bring as many reviewers as the role needs. Pay for the next role when you have it.
The line we are not crossing
We use AI heavily. We do not use it to make hiring decisions, and we never will.
Every AI output in Reordinal is an assist for a human reviewer. The fit score is a starting point. The summary is a way to read the resume faster. The criteria match is something the reviewer should sanity-check, not trust. We do not auto-reject. We do not auto-advance. We expose the AI's reasoning so reviewers can disagree with it, override it, and add a note explaining why.
This is partly a product decision and partly a values one. Hiring is a high-stakes call about a person. It belongs to people. AI can help a reviewer move faster, but it should not be quietly doing the deciding.
If you want a tool that promises to "automate hiring," there are plenty of those. We are not one of them.
Who this is for
If you are running a 10–50 person company and you have ever closed a tab in frustration in the middle of reviewing LinkedIn applicants, Reordinal is built for you.
Start with one job. See how it feels. If it does not save you a meaningful amount of time on the first review session, you should not pay us for the second one.
That is the deal.