Hire billable talent that actually fits.

Aster parses every resume into structured data, roles held, industries served, skills applied, and years at each seniority level, then scores each applicant against what the specific engagement actually needs, with the reasoning behind that score shown plainly rather than hidden behind a single number. That gets you most of the way: it surfaces who has genuinely relevant industry exposure versus who just has an adjacent job title. It doesn't replace judgment entirely. The interview still matters for reading how someone communicates with a client or handles pressure, which is exactly why Aster also gives every interviewer role-specific questions and a shared scorecard, so that human judgment gets applied consistently instead of being the only filter.

Yes. Aster drafts interview questions based on the specific role and the individual candidate's background, so a question set for a tax advisory hire looks different from one for a litigation associate, and even two candidates for the same role get questions shaped by their own resume. Interviewers can edit or add to the draft before the conversation, it's a starting point built to save prep time and keep coverage consistent, not a rigid script. The goal is that every partner walks in already primed to ask about the client work and skills that actually matter for that engagement, instead of reinventing the interview from scratch every single time.

Disagreement is normal, and Aster doesn't try to hide it. Each interviewer scores a candidate from 1 to 4 on a shared scorecard right after their conversation, and those scores roll up into one team view rather than being averaged away into a single silent number. If two partners score a candidate highly on client communication and a third scores them low, that split is visible to everyone on the panel, which is usually exactly the conversation you want to have before an offer goes out. The final call is still a human one, Aster's job is to make sure it gets made with the full picture in front of the group, not a partial one.

Every applicant who's come through Aster, plus referrals and alumni, sits in a searchable talent pool rather than disappearing once a requisition closes. You can search by skill, industry, or seniority level, and the same typo and synonym tolerance used on live applications applies here too, so a search for "M&A" surfaces someone who wrote "mergers and acquisitions." Each profile carries source-tracked apply links showing where the person originally came from, a referral, a job board, your careers site, so you know which channels are actually producing candidates worth re-engaging, not just which ones produce the most volume.

Aster isn't built around one practice area. The matching runs on whatever industries, skills, and seniority levels you define for a role, so it works the same way whether you're staffing a consulting engagement, hiring a litigation associate, filling a senior accountant seat, or bringing on billable designers at an agency. What changes is the criteria your team sets, not the underlying process: structured resume data, a match score with reasons, consistent interview questions, and shared scorecards. Firms with multiple practice groups or offices can run all of it from one shared pipeline, with role-based access controlling who sees which searches.

Candidate data in Aster is encrypted in transit and at rest, and scoped to your workspace only, nobody outside your firm has access to it. Role-based access controls mean a confidential search, replacing someone still in the seat, or staffing a sensitive client engagement, can be limited to the people actually running it, and an audit trail records who viewed, moved, or scored each candidate and when. That gives you a factual record if a hiring decision is ever questioned. Your data is never used to train shared models, and you can export or delete it at any time, which matters when client confidentiality obligations extend to how you handle your own hiring records.