Skima AI

Are scope, spend, and authority enforced while the agent runs?

Vendor publishes a "Responsible & Unbiased AI" policy describing how it keeps automated decisions fair and auditable, and claims explainable scoring. That is a stated policy, not an enforced run-time limit: nothing on the page checked describes scope, spend or authority being constrained at execution time.

Is there a tamper-evident record of what it actually did?

Vendor states "Every match is auditable. Every decision can be explained to your hiring manager, your legal team, or the candidate themselves." A customer- and candidate-reviewable record is claimed. No tamper-evidence, hash-chaining or immutability is claimed, so short of a 3.

Our automated recount on Aug 14, 2026 counted enough evidenced fields for 1/3. It never reads what those fields say, so it does not overturn the score above, judged on Aug 19, 2026 — but where the two disagree it is a reason to read this dimension again. Why there are two scores

Are compliance obligations attached per engagement?

Vendor states GDPR and SOC 2 compliance, displays a "SOC 2 Type 2 Independently audited security controls" badge, and states alignment with EU AI Act high-risk AI requirements and NYC Local Law 144 annual bias audits for automated hiring tools. All self-declared: no certificate, auditor name, report date or completed bias-audit result is published on the page checked.

Does payment depend on a verified result?

No public evidence found. No pricing model, fee structure, success fee or outcome-linked settlement appears anywhere on the page checked; the only monetary figure is a $240,000/year statistic about the cost of manual screening to customers.

Can the deployment be insured, and is the customer indemnified?

No public evidence found. No insurance, carrier, coverage limit, indemnity or liability cap appears on the page checked.