Technical Writer

$30–60/hrrate as listed

micro1 is contracting technical writers to build expert-level evaluation tasks for an AI benchmark project, including realistic source documents and 35+ item grading rubrics. Work is remote, asynchronous, and paid per accepted task, with observed rates in the $30–60/hr range depending on output speed.

Summary, eligibility guidance and screening preparation are prepared by Sidequest from the platform's posting. Check the source listing before applying.

What the work involves

You are not writing documentation for a product — you are writing documentation problems that a strong AI agent should be able to solve, plus the rubric that decides whether it did. A typical task starts with you constructing a believable scenario: a firmware release with incomplete engineering notes, a medical device labeling change under regulatory pressure, an undocumented internal API with inconsistent code samples. You assemble the raw inputs (CSVs, PDFs, spreadsheets, spec fragments, SME interview notes), define the deliverable, then decompose "good" into 35+ discrete, checkable rubric items covering factual accuracy, precision of instruction, testability of steps, and fit for the stated audience.

The rubric is usually the hardest part and the part reviewers scrutinize most. Vague criteria ("clear and well-organized") get rejected; criteria that a second reviewer could apply to the same output and reach the same verdict get accepted. Expect asynchronous back-and-forth with project leads on early submissions as you calibrate to the benchmark's difficulty target and formatting spec.

What the platform screens for

A real portfolio in software, hardware, medical devices, or another regulated domain — 2–4+ years of shipped documentation, not adjacent content marketing.
Evidence you can write to a style guide and work in a documentation toolchain (structured authoring, docs-as-code, DITA, or similar).
Prior experience defining acceptance criteria, review checklists, or QA rubrics for technical deliverables.
Written English with genuine control of register — API reference voice versus end-user guide voice versus compliance language.
Judgment about failure modes: can you predict where a competent writer or model would get something subtly wrong?

Benchmark or evaluation experience is a nice-to-have, not a gate. Domain depth is the actual filter.

Logistics

Fully remote and asynchronous, contractor engagement. Compensation is output-based — paid per task that meets project spec — so effective hourly earnings depend on how quickly you produce accepted work; the $30–60/hr band reflects reported ranges rather than a guaranteed rate. A weekly minimum submission volume applies. micro1 typically fills these roles within 48 hours and expects first tasks within 24–48 hours of onboarding, so this suits people with immediate open capacity rather than a queued start.

What they look for

Precision writing
Source synthesis
Audience calibration
Technical Writing

Before you apply

Would you pass this screen?

Drawn from what this listing actually requires. Answered in your browser — nothing is sent to us, and we do not store your answers.

Do you have a portfolio or samples of technical writing you've authored in software, hardware, medical devices, or regulated industries that you can share with us?
Technical writing portfolio · required
Do you have at least 2 years of professional experience writing technical documentation?
Years of technical writing experience · required
Have you used structured authoring tools, markup languages (Markdown, AsciiDoc), static site generators, or version control systems for technical documentation?
Structured authoring or documentation tools · preferred
Have you authored technical documentation for a regulated industry (medical, pharmaceutical, aviation, finance, safety-critical software, or similar)?
Regulated industry experience · preferred
Are you able to commit to starting your first tasks within 24–48 hours of onboarding and submitting the minimum required tasks per week?
Availability and output capacity · required

0 of 5 answered

Included with this listing

Interview prep — 10 questions

Matched to what this platform's screening actually measures. Answer each out loud in 60–90 seconds: claim → concrete example → implication.

What it tests: Whether the candidate has real experience writing docs that serve actual users, not just going through procedural motions; whether they think beyond syntax to audience comprehension and outcome.
A strong answer: Describe a concrete document (API guide, user manual, compliance procedure, etc.), name the audience (developers, end-users, regulators), and explain how you tested clarity—user feedback, internal review, or measurable adoption/adoption metrics. Show you iterated based on real data, not assumption.
Where people lose it: Naming a document type without specifics ('I wrote technical docs') or describing the writing process rather than its real-world impact. Saying 'it was clear' without evidence of validation. Missing the audience entirely.