AI Job Replacement Risk Test
Twelve questions about your real daily work, not buzzwords. You'll get your automation risk level, the three strengths AI cannot replicate about your role, and what to do this week to stay ahead.
How it works
- Answer 12 scenario questions about how routine your work is, how much it depends on people, and how your company is adopting AI.
- Get your risk level. We score Low, Moderate, High or Critical — with a plain explanation of what drives your score.
- Read your moat. We surface three abilities hard for AI to replace, based on your answers, plus three actions to strengthen them.
It's a practical self-check, not a scientific employment forecast. It weights the factors research consistently links to automation exposure: task routinization, digital output, interpersonal judgment, and learning agility. Use it to start a conversation with yourself, not to quit your job.
Low means most of your value currently sits in work AI struggles with; Moderate means parts of your role are automatable and worth upgrading; High means your role has substantial automatable content — learn AI actively; Critical means high exposure — start actively building the human strengths that machines cannot copy.
No. It runs 100% in your browser with no account, no email and no upload. Your result disappears when you close the tab.
It is the combination of abilities your answers show you rely on — for example reading people, deep specialized knowledge, or rapid learning — that are hard to digitize and hand to an AI. The report lists your top three based on your answers.
Yes, completely. Free, unlimited retakes, no email required, no paywall on any result.
Who this tool is for
Use it if most of your output leaves your desk as text, numbers, tickets or slides, and you want a structured read on which parts of that work a machine could pick up. Payroll clerks, benefits administrators, junior analysts, content coordinators, order-processing staff and frontline support leads are typical users. Managers run it with a team so the conversation moves from headlines to specific tasks. People in hands-on trades, clinical work or field service usually score low here, and the page will tell them so.
Twelve answers cannot forecast a layoff, a budget decision or your manager's plans. The result describes exposure in the work you described today. Treat it as a prompt for a career conversation, not as a verdict, and never as a reason to resign.
How to read your result
Each answer carries a weight from 0 to 4, and the last question from 0 to 2; the tool adds them and divides by the maximum, so the number is a percentage out of 100. Risk rises as the total rises. Four bands follow fixed cut-offs: below 30 is Low, 30 to 54 Moderate, 55 to 74 High, and 75 or above Critical. The band is not a probability of losing your job; it is a summary of how much routine, digitised, rule-following work your answers describe.
Below the score, a notice explains what pushed you into that band. The moat section lists three strengths, drawn from the answers where you scored closest to the safe end — context that a computer cannot see, judgment about people, confidential work, specialised knowledge or a habit of learning tools early. The first line was simply the strongest signal in your answers. The three actions are tied to the band, not to your name: everyone in Moderate receives the same three, so read them as a starting menu and choose one.
One caution: a single answer can move the band. If you mark your company as rolling AI out company-wide but describe your own week as one-off judgment, the two statements pull in opposite directions, and the score lands in the middle.
A worked example
An HR generalist at a 300-person logistics firm answers for a typical month. Her week is a mix of routine and new problems, about 41 to 60% of her tasks could be written as steps, most of her value comes from reading people, and her decisions often depend on context a system does not have. She learns new tools quickly, about half her output is digital, her company runs pilots in some teams, one task was taken over in the past year, outsiders need real experience to do her job well, she learns a new tool and uses it, she holds deep domain knowledge, and she occasionally handles confidential data.
The weights total 19 out of a possible 46, which the page rounds to 41 out of 100: Moderate risk. The explanation says parts of the role are automatable, and that a colleague who learns to use AI will gradually out-produce one who does not. The moat list returns people judgment first, then her habit of adopting new tools, then the variety of her cases. Her three actions are to template the two most repetitive deliverables this month, spend twenty minutes a day on one skill, and volunteer for an AI pilot. The report also links to the skills assessment, the moat finder and the role score.
Common mistakes
The usual error is answering how you feel about AI rather than how your work is arranged. Fear produces inflated scores; enthusiasm produces flattering ones. Another error is treating the percentage as a personal rating. The number moves when your tasks move, and that is the only sense in which it is useful.
Some people answer question seven about company adoption as they wish it were, not as it is; that single item can shift the band by several points. Others skip the moat section because the score upset them, which loses the more actionable half of the report. Do not retake it weekly hoping for a lower number; retake it after a quarter in which you changed what you do.