refactor: shared agent workflows (F01) and one application registry (F02)
Checkpoint for the 2026-09-11 project review remediation. Work by a previous agent that ran out of context; committed unchanged as a rollback point before the remaining findings land on top of it. F01 — the two agent directories had drifted into different processes - Six shared workflows under `resume_builder/reference/workflows/`; both `.agents/skills/` and `.claude/skills/` are now thin entrypoints that route to the same file instead of carrying full copies. - The `.claude` copies were the stale side: fixed bullet line variants and character budgets that the newer process had already dropped. Removing them is the point of the change, not collateral. - Parity/link regression test added; corrected the top-level file map, which pointed at a directory that does not exist. F02 — application status was stored in four places and disagreed - New registry `job_scout/state/applications.json` (26 records) with `application_records.py` (schema, validation, transactional write) and `application_tracker.py` (add/update, no quota). - AGENTS.md and CLAUDE.md no longer keep their own status tables; both point at `current_applications.md`, generated from the registry. - Interview-reached is now independent of outcome, so a withdrawal after an interview can record both facts. The old tables are preserved verbatim in `job_scout/state/history/application_status_before_2026-09-11.json`. Verification: `python -m unittest discover -s tests -v` — 18/18 pass. Spot-checked that the detailed SBB and Kdo Cy notes survived the migration into the registry rather than being flattened. Known unresolved, deliberately not invented (see FIX_PROGRESS.md): Aker BP's application date and its Adjacent-despite-79 classification. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01Qej5SBvhcbGXHwLqNWiskM
This commit is contained in:
dennisthiessenandClaude Opus 5 committed
1 parent
0d999ab21b
commit
afdef7eb94
33 files changed
+1558
-1768
No files matched your search
@@ -1,111 +1,11 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
description: Re-critique existing resume/CV output files against a JD
|
||||
name: critique
|
||||
description: Critique an existing resume or cover-letter package against its real job description. Use for application-fit review, truth/provenance audit, recruiter and hiring-manager evaluation, separate Evidence Fit and Document Quality scoring, channel-strength assessment, and post-edit re-critique.
|
||||
user-invocable: true
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
# /critique
|
||||
# Shared project workflow
|
||||
|
||||
**User input:** `$ARGUMENTS`
|
||||
Read and follow [the critique workflow](../../../resume_builder/reference/workflows/critique.md) before doing this task. Resolve project paths from the repository root.
|
||||
|
||||
Parse `$ARGUMENTS`:
|
||||
- Session file path (e.g., `output/Acme/session_acme_engineer.md`) → read session file, derive .tex paths from Output Files
|
||||
- .tex file path(s) + JD source (existing format) → backward compatible
|
||||
- Session name (e.g., `acme_engineer`) → find session file via derivation
|
||||
|
||||
If no CL .tex provided or found in session file, critique resume/CV alone (Part 7 adjustments noted below).
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Safety Rules
|
||||
|
||||
**Accuracy > Relevance > Impact > ATS > Brevity**
|
||||
|
||||
Read `config.md` Provenance Flags. Verify every claim against that table.
|
||||
**JD integrity:** the critique is only as valid as the JD. If the JD source is a reconstruction/inference/template rather than the real posting (see `shared_ops.md` → JD Integrity), STOP — flag it to the user and offer to scrape the live posting (Playwright recipe) before critiquing. Never score against a fabricated JD.
|
||||
Check `config.md` KB Corrections Log — do not flag corrected items as errors.
|
||||
Use the email from `config.md` Personal Info — flag if a different email appears in output.
|
||||
FIXED sections (from `config.md` FIXED Sections) are template-locked — do not flag for editing. Flag only VARIABLE sections.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## User Input During Execution
|
||||
|
||||
If the user provides feedback, corrections, or suggestions at any point:
|
||||
1. Acknowledge the input immediately
|
||||
2. If it changes scoring criteria or focus: adjust the critique accordingly
|
||||
3. Never restart — resume from current position
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Startup
|
||||
|
||||
Read `resume_builder/reference/shared_ops.md` — Fresh Session Startup + Session File Derivation.
|
||||
Read `CLAUDE.md` — check Active Sessions and KB Corrections.
|
||||
Read `config.md` — load Provenance Flags, FIXED Sections, email.
|
||||
Find and read the session file for the .tex being critiqued (use derivation protocol from shared_ops.md).
|
||||
|
||||
**Recovery check:**
|
||||
- If CL not DONE in session file → "CL not yet generated. Run `/make-cl` first."
|
||||
- If Critique: CURRENT → "Already critiqued (score X/100). Re-run? Waiting for confirmation."
|
||||
- If Critique: STALE → "Edits made since last critique. Re-critiquing."
|
||||
- If Critique: PENDING → proceed
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Protocol
|
||||
|
||||
1. **Read session file** — specifically note:
|
||||
- **Company Context** → reviewer persona, "why this company"
|
||||
- **Framing Strategy** → intentional reframing decisions (flag only execution inconsistencies, not the strategy itself)
|
||||
- **Cover Letter Plan** → CL structure rationale
|
||||
- **Critique Context** → reviewer persona, competitive landscape, domain vocabulary
|
||||
- If session file lacks Company Context or Critique Context: do 1-2 web searches to fill gaps
|
||||
2. Read `resume_builder/reference/critique_framework.md`
|
||||
3. Read `resume_builder/support/ai_fingerprint_rules.md` — use Section 6 checklist in Part 7 verification
|
||||
3. Read the .tex file(s) — derive paths from session file Output Files, or from `$ARGUMENTS`
|
||||
4. Read the JD (path from `$ARGUMENTS` or session file)
|
||||
5. Read the relevant bundle (`resume_builder/bundles/bundle_[role_type].md` — from session file)
|
||||
6. Run char count:
|
||||
```bash
|
||||
python3 resume_builder/helpers/char_count.py -f [resume|cv] [file.tex]
|
||||
```
|
||||
7. Compile and visually verify:
|
||||
```bash
|
||||
pdflatex -interaction=nonstopmode -output-directory=output/<FolderName> [file.tex]
|
||||
```
|
||||
Use the Read tool to view the compiled PDF — check orphans, page fill, header wrapping.
|
||||
If compile fails: note "COMPILE FAILED — visual checks could not be verified" in Part 8.
|
||||
8. If a prior critique exists (`output/<FolderName>/critique_<name>.md`): read it and note previous score.
|
||||
8b. **Paper Hook Verification:** If the CL cites named papers, PIs, programs, or publications, web-search to verify title, journal, year, and PI affiliation. Flag factual errors as Tier 1 fixes.
|
||||
|
||||
9. **Run the full critique per critique_framework.md. The output MUST contain ALL 8 sections** (even if the framework file has partially compacted, produce every section):
|
||||
|
||||
1. **Domain-Specialist Lens** — 7 elements:
|
||||
(a) Reviewer persona (b) Company context (c) JD vocabulary extraction (d) Domain vocabulary map
|
||||
(e) Gap ranking (fatal/serious/cosmetic) (f) Methodology transfer test (g) Competitive landscape
|
||||
2. **Five-Perspective Read-Through** — ATS, Recruiter (10s), HR (30s), HM (2min), Technical (10min) — each with verdict
|
||||
3. **Eight-Dimension Scoring** — weighted table summing to 100
|
||||
(ATS 15%, Summary 10%, Skills 10%, Bullets 25%, Publications 10%, Narrative 15%, Visual 5%, Credibility 10%)
|
||||
4. **Interview Likelihood** — per-reader probability + ceiling analysis
|
||||
5. **Tiered Improvements** — Tier 1 (>=1pt each), Tier 2 (0.3-0.9), Tier 3 (<0.3)
|
||||
6. **Interview Bridge Points** — 5-7 resume-to-interview talking points
|
||||
7. **Cover Letter Critique** — 6 sub-checks (6A anti-patterns, 6B tailoring, 6C context-specific, 6D ATS, 6E structural, 6F package cohesion)
|
||||
- **If no CL provided:** Skip 6A-6E. Run 6F as resume standalone assessment — evaluate whether the resume earns an interview without a CL. Note: "Cover letter not provided — package cohesion not assessed."
|
||||
8. **Post-Generation Verification** — mechanical + content + structural checklists
|
||||
|
||||
10. Save to `output/<FolderName>/critique_<name>.md`
|
||||
11. **Update session file** — Critique Summary (score, findings, tier 1 fixes), Status → Critique: CURRENT
|
||||
12. **Update memory pointer** with new score
|
||||
|
||||
Progress: "Reading session file for framing context..." / "Running ATS keyword scan — 16/20 match..." / "Scoring 8 dimensions..." / "Score: 87.0/100"
|
||||
|
||||
### >>>>>> MANDATORY STOP <<<<<<
|
||||
Present: score table + tier 1 actionable fixes + interview likelihood.
|
||||
**You MUST wait for the user's explicit text response before continuing.**
|
||||
If edits needed, tell user to run `/edit-resume`.
|
||||
|
||||
### When user approves / says "looks good" / finalizes:
|
||||
Verify all expected files exist in `output/<FolderName>/`:
|
||||
- session file, resume/CV .tex + .pdf, CL .tex + .pdf, critique .md
|
||||
- Compile artifacts (.aux, .log, .out)
|
||||
Confirm to user: "Package complete in output/<FolderName>/ — [list files]"
|
||||
This shared file is the only workflow implementation for both agents. Preserve existing user authorization and resume from the application's recorded state.
|
||||
Reference in new issue
Block a user