Better evidence. Better decisions.
Review every applicant. See what matters.
Every application reviewed against your program’s priorities. Every finding linked to its source. Your faculty spend less time searching through documents and more time evaluating the people behind them.
Works with the application files you already download. Your institution’s own sign-in.
Running a clinical competency committee? Meet RankLyst Compass →
“On her second day she caught a potassium of 2.9 on pre-rounds and had a repletion plan ready before we started.”
“…a solid, capable student.”
with strong evidence
A fictional applicant. Hundreds of lines in, a few things worth your time out.
Keep your application service, your screening and your scheduling. RankLyst is the review.
Reads the application files you already download from either service, including standardized letters in each one’s format. Programs used both this season.
Already screening or scheduling with another platform? Keep it. RankLyst is for the files your faculty actually read: every finding linked to its sentence, every reviewer’s ranking their own.
For training, RankLyst Compass reads the evaluations already in your evaluation system, such as New Innovations, and gets your CCC ready. Meet Compass →
More applications, more weight on the letters, and letters that all sound the same.
Applications the average urology program received in the 2025 Match, for about 40 interview slots.
Of program directors use specialty-specific letters of recommendation to decide whom to interview.
Of students were ranked in the “low third” on emergency medicine standardized letters, where an even split would put about 33% there.
When nearly every letter is glowing, the signal is in the specifics: what the writer actually saw, and what they left out. That’s what RankLyst finds and links for you.
We do the digging, so what matters is the first thing you see.
The typical faculty review time in a residency program this season, with the letters and application in one place. Faculty put their old way at about ten.
About 56 faculty hours back each season for a program with 140 applicants and three reviewers.
Click any flag to see the exact sentence in the letter or application it came from. Nothing to take on faith, and nothing you can’t explain later.
RankLyst points out real accomplishments that quiet or generic letters bury, and polished files with little behind them.
Review time from one urology residency program’s 2026 season, shared with the program director’s permission. Time is measured in the app; the ten-minute comparison is the faculty’s own estimate. Hours saved: 140 applicants × 3 reviewers × 8 minutes.
The polished letter, and the one that says something.
Two letters, two applicants. One is polished and could describe anyone; the other is plain and describes real skill. Here’s how RankLyst tells them apart, how every finding is checked, and what your reviewers decide. Fictional applicants and writers.
It is my great privilege to recommend Mr. Carter, an exceptional and truly outstanding medical student. Throughout his rotation he consistently demonstrated remarkable clinical acumen, an unwavering commitment to patient-centered care, and exemplary professionalism.
His passion for surgery and collaborative spirit made him an invaluable member of our team. I recommend him without reservation.
Ms. Lin rotated with our service for four weeks. By the third week she was presenting the overnight admissions and writing the initial plans, which I adjusted only for dosing. In the operating room, her technical skills were on par with our PGY-2 residents.
She will benefit from continued work on prioritizing when the list is busy. I recommend her.
Letter A sounds stronger and could describe almost anyone. Letter B is plainer and describes what she actually did. An experienced reader sees the difference at once.
The last line shows what happens when a quote can’t be found in the source: it doesn’t become a finding.
| Your priority | Applicant 0442 | Applicant 0451 |
|---|---|---|
| Performs above the level of a student | Praise only | Strong evidence |
| Technical skill | Not described | Above level |
| Prioritization and efficiency | Not described | Growth area |
| Professionalism | Praise only | Not addressed |
Praise is always shown in the writer’s own words, but adjectives alone never count as strong evidence, and silence never counts against an applicant. This view stays locked for each reviewer until they’ve submitted their own ranking.
| Reviewer | Ranking |
|---|---|
| You | Higher rank |
| Reviewer 2 | Higher rank |
| Reviewer 3 | Middle rank |
Two pictures tell you where to look.
Every SLOE, read and charted.
Ratings from each standardized letter land on one chart, using your specialty’s own form and scale. A rating below the others, or letters that disagree, is flagged so you know exactly where to read.
Your priorities, as a bullseye.
You tell RankLyst what your program values. Each slice is one of your priorities, filling toward the center as the letters and application show real evidence of it. It unlocks only after a reviewer submits their own ranking.
Shown for a fictional applicant. In RankLyst, every flag opens to the sentence behind it.
“Our faculty spent about two minutes per applicant instead of 10, and our decisions got sharper. We spent our time on the evidence that mattered, not digging through pages of glowing boilerplate to find it. I wouldn’t go into another season without it.”Meghan Schaefer · Program Director, Urology Residency, Medical College of Wisconsin
“Honestly, I don’t ever want to go back to what we did last year. It made reviewing overall tremendously easier. Format was easy to navigate and find the original info relative to the hot points that it pulled out.”
Aaron Dahmen · Urology faculty reviewer, Medical College of Wisconsin
A real RankLyst screen, shown with a fictional applicant and fictional letter writers.
Concerns tucked inside praise, pulled out.
Letter writers rarely write “concern.” They write “their endovascular skills are still developing” in the middle of a warm paragraph. RankLyst lines up each writer’s own words side by side and flags the ones worth a closer read.
- Checked against the originalEvery quote is matched word for word to the source document. A finding without verifiable source text isn’t shown as evidence.
- The same standard on file one and file four hundredEvery applicant is checked against the same priorities, however long the review session runs.
- What a tired read missesDescribed actions buried in the application, concerns tucked inside praise, and letters that disagree with each other.
- Hard rules and judgment calls, labeled apartReviewers always know whether a flag is a fixed check or a reading of the text.
One way of reviewing, from application to graduation and beyond.
The same evidence-linked review for each decision in a physician’s career: the residency application, every evaluation in training, and faculty promotion.
RankLyst
Residency and fellowship applications, checked against your program's priorities, with reviewers ranking independently before they see anyone else's view.
RankLyst Compass
Every evaluation a resident received, read before your clinical competency committee meets: concerns first, the evidence behind each sub-competency, and what the evaluations leave out.
RankLyst Advance
Promotion and tenure dossiers read against your school's written criteria, with each conclusion tied to the document that supports it.
Hiring? Our sister product RecruitLyst brings the same evidence-linked review to recruiters and hiring committees. Meet RecruitLyst →
Built to be defended, by the people who have to defend it.
What it always does
- Independent ranking first. Other reviewers' rankings stay hidden until you submit your own.
- Every flag traced to a source. No finding appears without the sentence behind it.
- Concerns stay in view. A concern is never silently dropped.
- A complete record. Who decided what, from which evidence, under which rule.
What it never does
- It never selects or rejects applicants. It organizes the evidence; your reviewers rank, and your committee decides.
- It never scores protected characteristics. Race, ethnicity, disability and citizenship are never turned into a field, flag or score.
- It never writes evaluations. It sorts and surfaces; people write.
- It never deletes on its own. Removing a record always takes an administrator's logged confirmation.
How your data is handled
| Where it lives | Hosted in the United States, on infrastructure separate from your institution’s network. |
|---|---|
| Encryption | Encrypted in transit and at rest: applicant records, letters and uploaded files. |
| Separation | Each institution’s data is kept apart and is never visible to another institution. |
| Sign-in | Single sign-on with your institution’s identity provider. Roles decide who sees what. |
| Audit trail | Every upload, role change and deletion is logged, along with who decided what, from which evidence. |
| AI processing | Document text is read through Anthropic’s Claude API, whose commercial terms don’t allow your documents to be used for model training. |
| Backups | Encrypted off-site backups every night. |
| Retention and deletion | Records past your retention window are flagged for an administrator. Nothing is deleted without a logged administrator confirmation. On request, we export your data and delete it. |
Before anything real is uploaded, we share our security summary, subprocessor list and data-processing terms for your review.
"We're committee members ourselves. We know what it's like to be a dozen files into a review session, tired, and aware our read isn't what it was for the first applicant. We built RankLyst so every candidate gets the careful read the first one got, and every reviewer's own judgment counts."Ken Jacobsohn, MD, FACS, DipABLM · Founder
Questions committees ask.
Is the software making the selection decision?
No. RankLyst doesn’t select, reject or recommend applicants. It organizes the evidence against your program’s standard, links every finding to its source, and brings together the rankings your reviewers make on their own. Your committee owns the rank list.
Does it touch protected-characteristic data?
RankLyst never creates a field, flag or score for race, ethnicity, disability status, citizenship or similar categories. An applicant’s personal statement stays in the record in full, because it’s their own words and the same document your committee already reads.
Where does our data go?
Records are stored in the United States, encrypted in transit and at rest, and kept separate from every other institution. Document text is processed through Anthropic’s Claude API. Before anything real is uploaded, we share our security summary, subprocessor list and data-processing terms for your review.
Which specialties does it support?
Residency and fellowship programs across specialties, with each program's forms and rating scales configured, not hard-coded. Tell us your field and we'll confirm fit before you commit.
Does it replace our application or residency management system?
No. It works alongside the systems you already use. Your GME platform runs the program; RankLyst strengthens the review.
We already use a screening tool. Why add RankLyst?
Screening narrows the pool. RankLyst is for the files your reviewers actually read: every letter, SLOE and application checked against your program’s own priorities, every finding linked to its sentence, and each reviewer’s ranking kept independent until they’ve submitted it. It works alongside the systems you already use.
What do you need from us?
The application files you already download, your program’s priorities, and a list of reviewers. Nothing has to change in your other systems.
Can we use our institution’s sign-in?
Yes. RankLyst supports single sign-on with your institution’s identity provider, so reviewers use the login they already have.
Is our data used to train AI models?
No. Your documents are used only to provide the service to your program, and Anthropic’s commercial terms don’t allow them to be used to train its models.
What happens if we stop?
On request, we export your data for you and then delete it from our systems. Encrypted backups expire on their normal schedule.
What does setup involve?
We configure your specialty’s letter forms and rating scales, set your program’s priorities and black flags with you, and connect your institution’s sign-in. You upload the application files you already have, and reviewers start after a short walkthrough.
How do you know it catches what matters?
We test it the way a skeptic would: on documents with known answers, with pass/fail rules written before each test runs. In our largest test, sending reviewers to the items most likely to be wrong caught about twice as many mistakes as checking the same number of items at random.
How is it priced?
Per program, per cycle. Request a quote and we'll scope it to your applicant volume and committee size.
See it on your own files.
Tell us about your program or committee. We'll set up a walkthrough and answer your data questions before anything real is uploaded.