GitHub is often used when it's there to build expectations. Interviewers will get to see a candidates resume and I always looked at it before interviews myself.

GitHub is often used when it's there to build expectations. Interviewers will get to see a candidates resume and I always looked at it before interviews myself. If the interviewing is inconclusive it's sometimes directly consulted by the decision makers. More pragmatically. How do you know they wrote the code on their github? Do you expect people who are already working for a company to write even more code when they're not working? How will candidates get a feel for the company themselves? How do you ensure some level of consistency? How would you generate documentation that could be used in any kind of discrimination case to protect yourself? What kind of systemic biases do you think GitHub/portfolio review style interviewing would create. How do you understand a person's disposition without adversity? I can't say how many candidates I should have passed but didn't, but pretty much every candidate I said yes to performed the job itself pretty proportional to how they performed in the interview.