> removal of the recruiter from remote roles

What does this mean? What issue is this?

Many remote roles are direct apply/hire from job boards with leetcode tests that act as a filter. Recruiters are being used less.

As a counterpoint to your post, I was recently hired by a 3000 person company who paid an external recruiter to post a job on LinkedIn and do the initial screening of me, which was extremely light.

8 rounds of interviewing with the company virtually later, I was hired. The interviews involved a mix of live coding, system design, and general questions about commonly used programming languages and frameworks.

I personally feel like the recruitment firm was beneficial to the process in getting my foot in the door and accelerating everything. I've seen many people have much worse experiences, but mostly from companies that aren't serious about hiring.

I’ve worked with good recruiters. They do a ton of work at the beginning of the hiring funnel.

If you got an onsite interview, you probably didn’t even notice the first few filters that the recruiter applied to you. Those early filters eliminate at least 90% of applicants.

Testing platforms charge the company tens of dollars per test, so it makes a lot of sense to have a person double check that the resume is relevant rather than sending tests automatically.

I suppose I see where you are coming from but a testing platform was never involved in my journey, just google docs.

What do you mean? The only remote job I have had used a typical recruiter from the company side. I am sure he had a premium subscription. I didn't use a recruiter from my side as I knew someone that worked there.

Third party recruiters specifically.

I've seen so many jobs that send leetcode tests instead as the initial filter and use job boards to find candidates.