0 Fork 0

Files

T

dennisthiessenandClaude Opus 5 afdef7eb94 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

2026-09-11 19:23:13 +02:00

1.9 KiB

Raw Blame History

Decide and Generate a Cover Letter

Startup

Read shared_ops.md, resume_builder/canonical/claims.json, cl_reference.md, the session, real JD and finished resume.
Run the validator on the resume.
Confirm that the session has a completed resume and a recorded Cover Letter Decision.

Decision Gate

If the session says NO, explain the recorded reason and stop unless the user explicitly asks to override it. If no decision exists, apply cl_reference.md before writing and record YES/NO.

Do not generate a letter merely because an upload field exists or because older workflow expected a three-page package.

Plan

State in one sentence what the letter adds beyond the resume. Select at most two evidence themes. Verify any named company/product/programme hook from a current primary source and save its URL in the session.

If the only possible content repeats resume bullets or paraphrases company news, change the decision to NO and explain why.

Generate

Use the selected audience profile and employer-requested language.
International Tech/industry: normally 200--300 words in two or three paragraphs.
Swiss/DACH: one A4 page, appropriate formality.
Employer-specific: follow the requested format or portal limit.
Lead with candidate-role connection.
Add motivation, decision context or a genuine connection.
Use only claims already present in both the canonical registry and resume.
Never introduce a new tool, metric, customer, ownership claim or result.

Verify

Run:

python resume_builder/helpers/validate_resume_system.py --document <resume.tex> --document <cover_letter.tex>

Compile and inspect the letter. Confirm it is readable, within the employer's limit, and materially different from the resume. Update the session and present the letter for approval. Point to /critique next.

1.9 KiB Raw Blame History