.jpg)
TL;DR
Interview Coder is an invisible AI assistant that helps candidates cheat during technical interviews by displaying real-time answers that screen-sharing software cannot capture.
- The tool uses low-level graphics overlays to remain invisible during screen shares
- Traditional proctoring methods like tab-switch detection cannot identify these overlays
- Behavioral signals such as consistent response delays and reading eye patterns expose cheaters
- AI interview platforms like Fabric analyze 20+ signals to detect cheating with high accuracy
- Active detection methods include asking about non-existent technologies and adaptive follow-up questions
Introduction
A candidate joins your video call. They share their screen, open the coding environment, and start solving the problem. Their solution is clean. Their explanation is clear. Everything looks perfect.
But something feels off. Their eyes keep scanning horizontally across the screen. They pause for exactly the same amount of time before every answer, whether you ask them to introduce themselves or explain a complex algorithm.
You might be watching someone read from Interview Coder.
Interview Coder and similar AI cheating tools have created a new challenge for technical hiring teams. These tools are designed to be completely invisible during screen shares while feeding candidates real-time answers. For recruiters conducting remote interviews, understanding how these tools work is the first step toward detecting them.
This blog breaks down the mechanics of Interview Coder, explains why traditional detection methods fail, and outlines practical strategies for identifying candidates who rely on AI assistance.
What is Interview Coder and how does it work?
Interview Coder is an AI-powered cheating application that provides real-time coding solutions during technical interviews. Unlike older cheating methods that required candidates to glance at a second monitor or split their screen, Interview Coder integrates directly with the operating system's graphics layer.
The tool uses low-level graphics hooks (DirectX on Windows, Metal framework on macOS) to render a transparent overlay directly on the candidate's screen. This overlay sits above the coding environment but below the layer that screen-sharing software captures. The result: candidates see a heads-up display with AI-generated answers, while interviewers see only a clean code editor.
Interview Coder captures interview data through two primary methods:
- Audio capture For verbal questions, the tool uses virtual audio drivers to intercept the interviewer's voice. Speech-to-text engines transcribe the question, feed it to a large language model, and display the answer on the overlay within 1 to 2 seconds.
- Screen capture with OCR For coding problems displayed visually, the tool continuously captures the problem statement area using optical character recognition. The extracted text goes to an LLM trained on competitive programming datasets, which generates optimal solutions complete with complexity analysis.
The entire process from question to answer takes approximately 3 to 5 seconds, creating what detection experts call the Lag Loop.
Why is Interview Coder difficult to detect with traditional proctoring?
Traditional proctoring tools were designed for a different era of cheating. They monitor for tab switches, browser lockouts, and second faces appearing on camera. Interview Coder bypasses all of these measures.
Because the overlay renders at the GPU level rather than in the application layer, screen-sharing software simply cannot see it. The candidate never switches tabs. The browser never loses focus. No suspicious applications appear in their taskbar.
Full-screen lockdown modes offer no protection either. The cheating overlay exists outside the application sandbox entirely. Some candidates go further by running Interview Coder on a secondary device, pushing answers to a phone propped just below the webcam's field of view.
Browser-based plagiarism detection also falls short. Interview Coder generates unique solutions for each problem rather than copying from a database. The code appears original because, technically, it is.
These technical realities explain why 59% of hiring managers now suspect candidates of using AI tools during assessments, yet most lack the ability to prove it.
What behavioral signals reveal Interview Coder usage?
While Interview Coder may be invisible to software, it creates distinct behavioral patterns that trained observers and intelligent systems can identify.
1. Flatline response timing
In natural conversation, response time varies with question difficulty. Simple questions get quick answers. Complex technical problems require longer pauses for thought.
Candidates using Interview Coder show nearly identical delays regardless of question complexity. They wait 4 to 5 seconds to state their name, and they wait 4 to 5 seconds to explain database optimization. This consistency occurs because the AI tool follows the same processing steps every time: capture, process, generate, display.
2. Reading eye movements
Human eyes move differently when remembering versus reading. When recalling information, eyes tend to drift upward or to the side with an unfocused quality. When reading, eyes move in smooth horizontal sweeps from left to right, then snap back to the start of the next line.
Candidates reading from an invisible overlay display this mechanical left-to-right pattern while appearing to look at their coding environment. If they use a secondary device, their eyes repeatedly dart to the same off-screen location.
3. Question echoing as a stall tactic
To cover the 3 to 5 second Lag Loop, many candidates repeat the interviewer's question verbatim. Phrases like "So you're asking about the scalability of the database system…" buy time while the AI generates an answer. Frequent question repetition paired with minimal original content in the opening seconds of responses indicates dependence on external assistance.
4. Vocabulary and expertise mismatch
AI tools provide technically sophisticated answers that may exceed a candidate's actual knowledge. A junior developer might suddenly use advanced terminology they cannot explain when asked follow-up questions. The disconnect between scripted perfection and fumbled explanations reveals the gap between the AI's knowledge and the candidate's understanding.
How can recruiters actively detect Interview Coder?
Beyond passive observation, recruiters can use active techniques that exploit the limitations of AI cheating tools.
1. Ask about non-existent technologies
LLMs are designed to be helpful, which means they often generate plausible-sounding answers about things that do not exist. Ask candidates to use a fake library or framework. For example: "How would you implement this using the FastBuffer class from FabricDataStream v2.1?"
A genuine candidate will search for documentation, find nothing, and ask for clarification. A candidate using AI assistance will receive fabricated code for the non-existent library and may even begin implementing it.
2. Require specific failure stories
AI excels at textbook definitions but struggles with negative personal experiences. After a candidate delivers a polished answer, follow up with: "Tell me about a time you tried this approach and it failed."
This forces candidates off-script. Cheating tools cannot fabricate authentic failure stories with specific project details, team dynamics, and lessons learned.
3. Inject rapid context switches
Ask a technical question, then immediately pivot to an unrelated domain, then return to the original topic. For example: "Explain how you'd optimize this query. Actually, first tell me about your experience with team conflicts. Now, back to the query, what's the time complexity of your approach?"
LLMs maintain context linearly. Rapid jumps between unrelated topics break the coherence of AI-generated responses and force candidates to demonstrate genuine knowledge.
4. Monitor typing patterns
Genuine coding involves variable typing speeds, pauses for thought, and corrections. AI-assisted cheating often produces burst typing (large code blocks appearing instantly) or unnaturally consistent keystroke timing. Pay attention to whether the code appears gradually or materializes in suspicious chunks.
How does Fabric detect and prevent Interview Coder cheating?
Fabric takes a fundamentally different approach to cheating detection. Rather than relying on binary flags like tab switches, Fabric treats the interview as a signal-rich data stream and analyzes over 20 distinct indicators simultaneously.
The platform combines three detection vectors:
Biometric and behavioral signals include gaze tracking that measures how linear eye movements are during speech, voice stress analysis, blink rate patterns, and head pose variance. These signals identify when someone is reading rather than recalling.
Interaction telemetry tracks focus loss events (even micro-flickers lasting less than 100 milliseconds), keystroke dynamics, clipboard activity, and mouse path efficiency. Cheating overlays sometimes grab window focus briefly to update, creating detectable patterns.
Content integrity analysis examines response coherence against the candidate's resume baseline, identifies LLM-typical phraseology, and cross-references code against known patterns. When a junior candidate suddenly produces senior-level architectural explanations, the mismatch triggers review.
Fabric's conversational AI interviews add another layer of protection. Unlike static coding assessments, Fabric's AI interviewer adapts in real time. When a candidate delivers a perfect answer, the system immediately probes deeper with specific follow-up questions that force candidates off-script.
This adaptive approach addresses the core vulnerability of cheating tools: they thrive on predictable, standardized questions. Conversational interviews that change direction based on responses create conditions where AI assistance provides no advantage.
Based on extensive evaluation, Fabric detects cheating in 85% of cases and provides timestamped reports with detailed analysis so hiring teams can verify results.
Conclusion
Interview Coder represents a new category of cheating tool that traditional proctoring cannot address. Its invisible overlay technology defeats screen monitoring, browser lockdowns, and plagiarism detection.
Detection requires shifting focus from what appears on screen to how candidates behave. Response timing patterns, eye movements, and the ability to handle unexpected follow-up questions reveal dependence on AI assistance more reliably than any screenshot.
For hiring teams conducting remote technical interviews, combining trained interviewer observation with AI-powered behavioral analysis offers the most effective defense. Tools like Fabric provide the multi-signal detection capability needed to identify synthetic assistance while avoiding false positives that penalize nervous but honest candidates.
The goal is not to catch every cheater. The goal is to make cheating difficult enough that it no longer provides an advantage.
FAQ
What is Interview Coder?
Interview Coder is an AI cheating application that displays real-time coding solutions on an invisible overlay during technical interviews. The overlay cannot be captured by screen-sharing software, making it undetectable through traditional proctoring.
Can Interview Coder be detected through screen recording?
No. Interview Coder uses low-level graphics rendering that exists below the layer captured by screen-sharing and recording software. Detection requires behavioral analysis rather than screen monitoring.
What is the Lag Loop in interview cheating?
The Lag Loop is the 3 to 5 second delay between when a question is asked and when a cheating tool can display an answer. This delay occurs because the tool must capture audio, transcribe it, generate a response, and render the output.
What is Fabric?
Fabric is an AI interview platform that conducts conversational technical interviews while analyzing 20+ behavioral signals to detect cheating. It combines adaptive questioning with biometric and telemetric analysis to identify candidates using AI assistance.
How accurate is AI cheating detection?
Fabric detects cheating in approximately 85% of cases through its multi-signal analysis approach. The platform provides timestamped reports with detailed explanations so hiring teams can review and verify flagged instances.