This is itself a massively difficult problem. Standardised tests are bad indicator of topic understanding. (setting aside the massive incentive for blatant cheating)
You're effectively advocating for leetcode being effective hiring tool, which many would highly criticize.
At the end of the day it doesn't really matter what our opinions of good screening are, but what the salary-payers are. Personally I just rely on live (& conversational) task-based coding tests.
I want competent and skilled coworkers. I care about our hiring process, and the hiring process of where I apply. Many modern screening processes are abysmal, and a abysmal screening process is reflected in the company and culture over time.
My experience of university exams makes it very clear that studying for test and studying to understand a topic are two different goals that collide or even contradict.
I dont want to hire anyone that studdied for the test instead of the topic. Placing any higher stakes on the test result encurrage the wrong behaviour and filters the wrong people.
I have friend who failed physics because they spent all their time writing their own kernel for mips assembly. And plenty of classmates who aced the exam by memorising prior year question examples.
who would you hire?
Even taking the tiny bits of the resume that are "hard signal", like GPA, certifications, prior roles, etc, it doesn't translate into their performance in the initial screening interview.
This is why what I think the industry sorely needs is examination consortia.
Rather than trying to guess capability from the name of the university they went to, leading tech companies creating standardized tests in various fields, and your test scores form your "resume", so that developers can just focus on improving their scores rather than wasting time on resume/application/repetitive-screening toil.