How to share candidate interviews with your hiring committee

Most hiring software already solved the easy version of this problem. Record a candidate, generate a link, send it to whoever needs to see it. That part has worked for years.

What it doesn’t solve is the second question, the one that actually decides whether you can share candidate interviews with your hiring committee without the whole thing stalling: once someone clicks that link, what can they see, and can you take it back?

A resume with a home address on it. A phone number. A match score with no context. Most tools hand you a binary choice. Either the person gets a full account with the keys to your candidate pool, or they get nothing.

You don’t run hiring alone if you’re the accidental recruiter at a small business. A franchise owner answers to a co-founder. A superintendent search firm answers to a school board. A small staffing agency answers to the client footing the bill. None of those people work for you day to day, and none of them are going to create a password just to watch three candidates once.

The reason committee hiring feels harder than it should isn’t the video. It’s that nobody built the sharing part for a stranger who’s doing you a favor.

A shareable link was never the hard part

If your only requirement is “let someone else watch the video,” you already have options. Plenty of one-way interview tools generate a link the moment a candidate finishes recording, and most of them don’t make the viewer sign up for anything either. That part of the problem got solved a while ago.

So why does sharing candidates with a committee still feel like a project? Because the link usually opens onto everything or nothing. Either your board member sees the raw recording with no scoring, no context, and no way to compare five candidates against each other, or they get routed into a full login flow built for a hiring manager who logs in every week, not someone reviewing your finalists once a quarter.

Neither version is actually built for the person on the other end. A raw video link makes the board member do the ranking themselves, from scratch, with no evidence beyond what they can see with their own eyes. A full account makes them do setup work for a five-minute favor. Both versions solve “can they watch it” and ignore “what should they be able to do once they’re there.”

What breaks once a stranger opens the link

The failure shows up in a few specific shapes, and they’re worth naming because each one points to a different fix.

A search firm and a school board

A search firm placing a superintendent sends finalist interviews to a school board. The board members aren’t staff. They’re volunteers who show up for one vote. If the process asks them to register anywhere, some of them simply won’t, and the firm ends up chasing signatures on a decision that should have taken ten minutes.

A staffing agency and its client

A small staffing agency screens a shortlist for a client company and needs that client to see the evidence, not just names on a spreadsheet. The client wants to see the interview and the reasoning behind the ranking before they’ll sign off on an offer. But the client isn’t going to learn a new system for three candidates on one job order, and the agency doesn’t have the headcount to build them a portal.

A regulated startup and who gets to see what

A startup in a regulated industry wants a hiring manager to see a candidate’s match score and interview, but not necessarily every internal note or every score component, because different people on the review chain are cleared to see different things. That’s a real question about who should see what, and most sharing tools don’t give you a lever for it at all.

Three different situations, one shared root cause. The sharing mechanism doesn’t distinguish between giving someone a seat and giving them the evidence for one decision.

The fix is controlling what a stranger can see

Once you see the pattern, the fix stops looking like a bigger feature list and starts looking like a narrower question: not “can this person see the candidate,” but “exactly what should this person see, and for how long.”

That reframe changes what you’d actually build. You don’t need every stakeholder to have a login, a role, and a seat on your team roster. You need a way to hand someone the specific evidence behind a specific decision, with the parts that don’t belong to them left out, and a way to shut the door again once the decision is made.

A resume has a home address and a phone number on it. A match score means nothing without the criteria behind it. A full candidate profile has notes from other reviewers that were never meant for an outside client. None of that needs to travel with a share link for a one-time reviewer to do their job. What they need is the part that answers the question they were asked to answer: does this candidate look right for the role.

Why a client portal isn’t the real answer

The obvious enterprise answer to “clients need visibility” is a client portal: a permanent, branded login where a client company can see their candidates whenever they want. Some staffing software builds exactly that, and for a firm running hundreds of open orders across dozens of clients, it can be worth the investment.

It’s the wrong answer at the scale most of our customers operate at. A small owner-run agency filling a handful of roles a month for a handful of clients doesn’t have the admin time to provision an account, set permissions, and maintain access for every client relationship, especially when half of those relationships only need to see three candidates one time. Building permanent infrastructure for a one-off review is solving the wrong-sized problem. What that agency actually needs is something that works per candidate, per share, with no setup beyond clicking a button.

What controlled sharing looks like in practice

This is where Truffle’s Candidate Sharing feature earns its place. Truffle is a candidate screening platform that combines resume screening, one-way video interviews, and talent assessments, and Candidate Sharing is the layer that lets you hand that evidence to someone outside your account without giving them an account at all.

How the link works

You generate a secure, read-only link from a candidate’s profile. Whoever gets that link sees the AI summary, the match percentage against your criteria, the Candidate Shorts, and the actual video responses. Contact information and the resume stay hidden, because a client company or a school board member doesn’t need a candidate’s phone number to decide whether they’re a fit.

If the review is sensitive enough to warrant it, you can add a password. When the decision is made, you revoke the link, and if you forget, it expires on its own after 75 days.

What it looks like for each scenario

The superintendent search firm sends the school board three links, one per finalist. Each board member watches the interview, reads the summary, and sees the match score, all without an account, a password reset, or a call to IT. The small staffing agency sends its client a link for the shortlist instead of a spreadsheet with names on it, and the client sees exactly the evidence the agency used to rank them. The startup with a regulated review chain controls what each reviewer sees by controlling what goes into the link, instead of building a permissions system nobody asked for.

The one real limit

A read-only link lets someone see the evidence. It doesn’t let them leave a rating inside Truffle the way a teammate with a Job Role can, because that requires an actual account. If your hiring committee is a standing group that reviews every search you run, not just this one, it’s worth inviting them as a Reviewer instead of sending a fresh link every time.

The share link is for the favor. The account is for the ongoing seat. Knowing which one you’re dealing with is most of the decision.

The bigger shift this points to

Committee hiring was never really about getting more eyes on a candidate. It was about getting the right eyes on the right evidence without turning every stakeholder relationship into an IT request. A resume, an interview, and an assessment only compound into confidence if the people who need to weigh in can actually see them. That’s the same logic behind good candidate engagement more broadly: the process only works if the person on the other end doesn’t have to fight it to take part.

The owner who inherited hiring didn’t sign up to be their board’s IT department either. The fewer accounts standing between “I need your read on this candidate” and someone actually giving it, the faster committee hiring starts looking less like a bottleneck and more like what it should have been from the start: a second opinion you can get in one afternoon instead of a week.

Frequently asked questions about sharing candidate interviews with a hiring committee

Do the people I share candidates with need a Truffle account?

No. A Candidate Sharing link is read-only and works for anyone with the URL. They don’t sign up, log in, or install anything. If you want someone to leave ratings or notes inside Truffle rather than just view the evidence, that does require inviting them as a team member with a Job Role.

What can someone see through a shared candidate link that they can’t see on the resume itself?

The link shows the AI summary, the match percentage against your criteria, Candidate Shorts, and the full video responses. It does not show contact information or the resume itself, so a client company or board member sees the evaluation, not the candidate’s personal details.

Can I stop someone from viewing a candidate after I’ve shared the link?

Yes. You can revoke a share link at any time from the candidate’s profile. If you don’t revoke it manually, it stops working on its own after 75 days.

Is a shared link secure enough for a client or a school board to review sensitive candidates?

You can add optional password protection to any share link for an extra layer of control, on top of the fact that the link itself only shows evaluation content and never contact details or the resume.

What’s the difference between sharing a link and inviting someone as a team member?

A share link is for a one-time or occasional reviewer who needs to see the evidence and nothing more, like a client company or a board reviewing finalists. Inviting someone as a team member with a Job Role makes sense when they’re a recurring part of your hiring process and need to leave their own ratings and notes directly in the platform.