Submitted 2026-08-26. Cohort entry added (Adjacent 2/2, cohort now 4/10, channel weak x3) and decision logged. The finding that matters is not the submission. The application form's preferred-work-location selector offered no Zurich, despite the JD body reading "in Miami, Zurich or New York", the posting header listing Zurich, and the site's own Zurich location filter returning this exact req when checked on 2026-08-25. The careers site footer reads Citadel Enterprise Americas LLC, so the likeliest explanation is a US-entity apply flow with European seats routed elsewhere, or a Zurich seat that is closed while the multi-location posting stands. This partly supersedes the working-model risk that blocked Phase 2. If no Zurich seat is reachable through that form, whether Zurich runs hybrid or five-day onsite is moot, and the application may be sitting against a US requisition - a hard no under the standing no-relocation constraint. Carry-forward rule recorded in both CLAUDE.md and the session file: check the application form's location selector before investing in a package. Two independent signals - the posting's stated locations and the employer's own location filter - both proved unreliable as evidence that a seat is actually reachable. Phase 0 treated the filter result as confirmation that the req was live in Zurich; that inference was weaker than it looked. Package itself is finished and reusable: both documents cleared the validator with zero warnings and the Tier 1 fixes lifted JD term coverage from 51% to 68%. Nothing about the documents is the weak point. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01MHtzyTKBcg6BWhD5qFegtK
Evidence-first resume kit
This repository turns verified career evidence into role-specific LaTeX resumes and, when useful, cover letters. It is designed to prevent a common failure mode of AI-assisted applications: making a document sound closer to the job description by silently overstating skills, scope, titles, or outcomes.
The workflow separates three questions that should never be confused:
- Evidence Fit: does the candidate actually meet the role, including hard gates?
- Document Quality: does the resume communicate the supported evidence clearly?
- Channel Strength: is the application cold, referred, or supported by a warm contact?
A polished resume cannot repair a failed qualification gate. A strong fit can still be hidden by a weak document. The system records both.
Source hierarchy
source documents
-> structured extractions
-> canonical claims registry
-> experience records and role bundles
-> session plan
-> generated resume / optional cover letter
resume_builder/canonical/claims.json is the highest-authority career source. Generated files under output/ are never treated as evidence. historical_outputs.json records whether an older package is safe to consult, must be revalidated, or must not be reused.
Default application strategy
- Target Staff/Senior Data Engineering first.
- Use ML Platform/MLOps, data platform, analytics, and semiconductor profiles only where direct evidence covers the actual requirements.
- Treat direct LLM engineering, formal model evaluation, Terraform-heavy SRE, and similar missing required experience as gates rather than keyword opportunities.
- Build application cohorts with roughly 70% core, 20% adjacent, and 10% deliberate stretch roles.
- Add a warm-channel action for core applications.
The default document is a two-page International Tech resume for US-tech/FAANG-style roles in Europe. A Swiss/DACH policy overlay is available for employers that expect local conventions. Cover letters are conditional, not automatic.
Workflow
Add evidence
- Put employment records, project material, papers, or notes under
knowledge_base/. - Run
setup-extractto create a source-grounded extraction. - Review it, then run
setup-build-kbto update canonical claims, experience files, bundles, and support data.
Apply to a role
- Run
make-resumewith the real JD. - Review the requirement table and fit gate before approving content generation.
- Generate and validate the LaTeX resume.
- Run
make-clonly when the session records a justifiedYESdecision. - Run
critiquefor separate Evidence Fit, Document Quality, and Channel Strength findings. - Run
edit-resumefor approved repairs.
The skills live in .agents/skills/. Each application receives a session file under output/<Role>/ that preserves the JD, fit decision, claim IDs, content plan, validation results, and application status.
Validation
Validate the knowledge system:
python resume_builder/helpers/validate_resume_system.py
Validate a generated document:
python resume_builder/helpers/validate_resume_system.py --document output/Role/resume.tex
Track the active 7/2/1 cohort:
python resume_builder/helpers/cohort_tracker.py summary
Character counts are available only as readability diagnostics. There are no fixed character bands, equal-length bullet rules, or page-fill quotas.
Output and prerequisites
The system writes .tex source only. Compile locally with a LaTeX distribution such as MiKTeX, TeX Live, or MacTeX. Generated resumes should also be checked through PDF rendering and text extraction before submission.
See DOCS.md for the architecture and policy reference.
License
MIT; see LICENSE.