dennisthiessenandClaude Opus 5
afdef7eb94
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
60 lines
2.1 KiB
Markdown
60 lines
2.1 KiB
Markdown
<!-- Shared workflow version: 2026-09-11 -->
|
|
|
|
# Critique an Application Package
|
|
|
|
## Startup
|
|
|
|
1. Read `resume_builder/reference/shared_ops.md`.
|
|
2. Read `resume_builder/canonical/claims.json` completely.
|
|
3. Read `config.md`, the session file, and the real verbatim JD.
|
|
4. Stop if the JD is reconstructed, incomplete or inferred.
|
|
5. Read `resume_builder/reference/critique_framework.md` and `resume_builder/support/ai_fingerprint_rules.md`.
|
|
6. Read the resume and optional cover letter. Never use either as evidence; verify against canonical claims and experience files.
|
|
|
|
## Preflight
|
|
|
|
Run:
|
|
|
|
```powershell
|
|
python resume_builder/helpers/validate_resume_system.py --document <resume.tex>
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
Add `--document <cover_letter.tex>` when a letter exists. Any failure is Tier 1 and prevents approval.
|
|
|
|
Compile the documents and inspect the PDFs. Extract resume text with `pdftotext` and confirm that employer, formal title and dates appear in the expected order.
|
|
|
|
## Critique
|
|
|
|
Follow `critique_framework.md` exactly:
|
|
|
|
1. Hard-gate audit.
|
|
2. Evidence Fit score, independent of writing.
|
|
3. Document Quality score, independent of role fit.
|
|
4. Channel Strength rating.
|
|
5. Competitive and reader-sequence assessment.
|
|
6. Canonical claim audit.
|
|
7. Tiered fixes.
|
|
8. Cover-letter decision/critique.
|
|
9. Mechanical verification.
|
|
|
|
Do not issue a single overall score. Do not label a high-quality document submit-ready when Evidence Fit fails a hard gate.
|
|
|
|
## Cover-Letter Handling
|
|
|
|
If the session records `Cover Letter Decision: NO`, do not penalize absence. If a letter exists, first assess whether it should exist under `cl_reference.md`.
|
|
|
|
## Save and Report
|
|
|
|
Save `output/<Folder>/critique_<name>.md`. Update the session with:
|
|
|
|
- Evidence Fit score and Core/Adjacent/Stretch classification.
|
|
- Hard-gate result.
|
|
- Document Quality score.
|
|
- Channel Strength.
|
|
- Tier 1 fixes.
|
|
- Critique status and date.
|
|
|
|
Present the fit verdict first, then the two scores and actionable fixes. Wait for explicit user approval before finalization or editing.
|
|
|
|
When approved, run the finalization checks from `shared_ops.md`. A package with a hard-gate NO-GO may be archived, but must not be described as recommended for submission.
|