Closing the loop
Silence is the default, and candidates remember it for years.
Every recruiter intends to write back. Almost nobody does, because writing something specific about a person takes twenty minutes and writing something generic is worse than nothing.
What it writes
Three letters, in a voice you set, from what is on the record.
Not only the rejection. A hold — the role is paused and silence would be the cruellest option. A withdrawal acknowledgement — they pulled out and a human reply is the cheapest goodwill in recruitment.
Each is drawn from the reason your recruiter chose, the notes from the interview where there are any, and what the role actually required. It is not a scored assessment, and we would rather say so than let you picture one.
Three letters, not one
- Rejectionthe answer is no
- Holdthe role is paused, and silence would be worse
- Withdrawalthey pulled out, and still deserve a reply
Three voices too — set once for your workspace. Tone changes how it reads, never what it says.
The rules it obeys
- Says nothing the record does not support
- No score, no rating, no number
- Silent rather than generic where it has nothing
- Signed on the client's behalf on agency work
- “Culture fit” and its cousins
- Anything a recruiter did not approve
You read the draft before it goes. Regenerating is refused once you have edited or sent it, so the draft you approved is the one that went.
Agency work is different, and it knows
A letter signs from the right company.
On agency work the letter signs on behalf of the client, because the candidate interviewed with them, not with you. On your own hires it signs from you. That distinction sounds small until a candidate replies to the wrong company about a role they never applied to directly.
- Some reasons should not get a letter —
Mark a rejection reason to skip it — a standard note goes instead, or nothing does. There are reasons where a personal letter is the wrong instinct and the product should not argue.
- Regenerate before you commit, not after —
Once you have edited or sent it, regeneration is refused. The draft you approved is the draft that went.
- WhatsApp, if you have set it up —
Off unless configured, and off unless that candidate opted in — with the refusal naming who has not.
- It never quotes a number —
No score, no rating, no band. A candidate does not need your internal arithmetic and you do not want it in writing.
Two limits, stated
Suppression, and what the letter is not covered by.
Suppression is whole-workspace, plus a list of reasons that skip it. There is no per-role or per-client switch — so if you have a client whose process forbids candidate feedback, today that is a conversation rather than a setting, and we would rather you found that out here.
And the letter itself is not swept by the retention run. The candidate is anonymised on schedule; the letter text, which carries their name, is not cleared with them. If you send feedback at volume, put that in front of your DPO before you switch it on.
The objections
Mostly about liability, and fairly.
›Could it say something we would not want in writing?
It is written not to. It says nothing the record does not support, it never gives a number, and generic verdicts like culture fit are excluded by construction. But a person reads every draft before it goes — that review is the safeguard, not a formality.
›Does it tell candidates their scores?
No. Nothing numeric reaches the letter.
›Can we stop it for one client?
Not today. Whole-workspace, plus reasons that skip it. This is the one request we get most and cannot yet answer.
›Can we change the tone?
Three voices, set for your workspace — warmer, professional, direct. Tone changes how it reads, never what it says.
›What does a hold letter do that an email would not?
It exists. Nobody writes the pause email, and the pause is when a good candidate takes the other offer.
Book a demo
Read one about a candidate you actually rejected.
Then read the one it writes when the reason is set to skip. The second is the more interesting design decision.