Profile Review: Exceptional Promise – Software Engineer (3.5 Years Experience)

Stage 1
1

Hello everyone,
@Francisca_Chiedu @pahuja @hsafra @ellagna @reachusama @mahesh3110

I’m preparing my UK Global Talent Visa application under the Exceptional Promise route (Digital Technology - Tech Nation). I would really appreciate feedback on my profile and evidence structure before I start compiling my submission.

Background

Profession: Full-stack Software Engineer (3.5 YoE)
Tech Stack: Laravel, Node.js (Express/Nest.js), Python, React, Electron, React Native, TypeScript.
Other Skills: UI design (Figma), analytics (Metabase, GA4), mentoring and technical supervision.

Current Roles:

  • Software Developer at Company A: working on a civic/public-facing digital platform for reporting and analytics.
  • Part-time Full-stack Developer at Company B: contributing to AI-based workflow automation tools.
  • Backend Tutor (Volunteer) at Tech Academy C: trained and mentored over 150 students, many now in jobs or internships.
  • Technical Supervisor for an early-stage startup: advising on architecture, code quality and deployment.

Past Role:

  • Backend Engineer at Company D (Fintech): built recurring payment automation and API systems before the company’s later acquisition.

Criteria Overview

Main Criterion

Recognised as having potential to be a leading talent in digital technology

Evidences planned:

  1. Recognition and leadership impact at Company A: driving backend architecture and technical direction on a civic technology platform.
  2. Strong performance and innovation recognition at Company B: AI-based automation features and product optimisation.
  3. Previous achievements at Company D (Fintech): payment APIs, performance scaling and process automation.
  4. Technical Supervisor role: evidence of peer recognition and leadership in shaping product decisions.
  5. Public mentoring recognition : awards as Best Mentor, social media acknowledgements, and student success stories.

Letters of Recommendation:

  1. Founder at current company: details of technical impact and leadership potential.
  2. Former Manager (now Co-founder of an international tech company): endorsement of technical growth and potential.
  3. Founder at former company (Founder of an international tech company): endorsement covering technical excellence and long-term career trajectory.

Optional Criterion 1 (Innovation)

As a founder or employee working on innovative digital products

Evidences:

  1. Product A (Company A) : civic tech platform introducing real-time digital reporting and automation for end users and public agencies.
  2. Product B (Company B) : AI-driven business workflow automation tools using GPT-based modules and reusable UI components.
  3. Live Coding Exam Platform : volunteer project enabling interactive student assessment and mentorship tracking.
  4. Letter of Commendation from a Public University: for developing a free Electron-based desktop application to support the bursary department’s payment tracking, with acknowledgment from senior administrators.

Optional Criterion 2 (Recognition Beyond Occupation)

Contributions outside employment that advance the digital technology field

Evidences:

  1. Mentorship of 150+ students at Tech Academy C: verifiable impact through awards, testimonials, and posts celebrating students securing jobs and internships.
  2. Public speaking and webinars on Twitter/X and other developer communities.
  3. Open-source project : published JavaScript library on NPM (10–20 weekly downloads).
  4. Reference letter from Tech Academy C: outlining measurable mentoring outcomes and community contribution.

Supporting Materials

  • GitHub repositories and commit history.
  • Product metrics and analytics (Metabase, GA4).
  • Screenshots and dashboards.
  • Commendation letters and student success evidence.
  • Reference letters from managers and collaborators.

I have a few questions

  1. Do my evidences meet the strength expected for Exceptional Promise?
  2. Do you think I should have used the OC3 instead of OC2?
  3. Are my chosen optional criteria balanced enough, or should I restructure them?
  4. Should I keep or replace my earlier fintech role (since the company was later acquired)?
  5. Does the technical supervisor role add sufficient weight under the main criterion?
  6. Any feedback on how to prioritise or merge evidences for stronger narrative flow?

Thanks so much for reading! Any feedback or restructuring advice would be greatly appreciated. I want to make sure my evidences clearly show progression, impact, and potential before I finalise my letters and statement.

2

Hi @Tobi_A

Your role as a software engineer is suitable for applying to GTV however your application set needs some more strength to be successful.

MC:

  • #1,2,3 are all internal company related work. In MC, you need to show industry recognition and not internal company recognition. Also 3 of internal company work is a lot without any public recognition. To strengthen, you should add how these works had an impact on the industry and add third-party validation towards it. Without this, these are weak evidences for MC.
  • The recognition mentioned in #2, 4, 5: are these internal company recognition or public media recognition with your name? If its internal, its not valid and weak.
  • The mentoring in #5 - was it part of a structured mentorship program with mentee selection? If not, this is invalid. Social media proofs are insufficient. Was the award an industry recognised external award?

OC1:

  • This focusses on innovation and its impact. You have mentioned what you did at 4 different places however what is important here is to establish what was the innovation in these, what was your individual contribution to the innovation, what is the market traction of these platforms and products in terms of commercials and third-party validation of your self claims across these companies.

OC2:

  • Was the mentorship part of a structured program with selection of mentees? If not, this is invalid.
  • Twitter webinars dont count. Speaking at high-profile tech events with 100+ attendees with main stage speaking pictures and invite/thank you letters is required.
  • If the above two are invalid, i would recommend you move the open source project to MC and attempt OC3 instead.

Hope this helps.

1 Like
3

Your current evidence structure has some fundamental gaps. Most critically, your MC relies heavily on internal company recognition without external industry validation. I’ve reviewed several applications where this pattern led to rejection because assessors need to see your work acknowledged beyond your employer.

Your mentorship at Tech Academy needs to be part of a structured program with documented selection criteria. The social media acknowledgements and best mentor award won’t be sufficient unless you can prove the award came from an external industry-recognized body. I’ve seen similar mentorship evidence rejected when applicants couldn’t demonstrate formal program structure with syllabi and selection processes.

The NPM library with 10-20 weekly downloads is too weak for MC. For open source to work in MC, you need either significant collaboration evidence or substantial usage metrics. Consider moving this to OC2 and switching from OC2 to OC3 instead. Your fintech work and civic tech platform fit OC3 better as they demonstrate contributions within product-led companies.

Drop the technical supervisor role unless you have external recognition proving your advisory impact. The evidence reads as internal acknowledgment, which won’t meet the bar. Focus your MC on building third-party validation through speaking at major conferences, contributing to substantial open source projects, or getting media coverage that validates your technical leadership.