dennisthiessenandClaude Opus 5 73336cc4f9 feat(sbb): critique the package and apply its Tier 1 fix
Critique per critique_framework.md: hard gate PASS, Evidence Fit 79/100
(Core, unchanged — a document cannot move candidate-role fit), Document
Quality 90/100, Channel Weak but uniquely upgradeable. Claim audit clean
across all 13 bullets; no Tier 1 truth findings.

The skill's own spec asks for a single 8-dimension score including a
Publications weight, which contradicts critique_framework.md and CLAUDE.md
("never collapse them into one optimistic score"). Followed CLAUDE.md and
recorded the conflict — the skill definition looks stale relative to the
July rewrite.

Tier 1 finding and fix: the JD names Abfrageleistungsoptimierung in a
required line and the document had zero occurrences of "query", despite
canonical support sitting in BS-2's 3L variant. BS-2 now reads "tuning
query performance for analysis teams working with…" and the Pipelines
skills line gains "query performance tuning". Also surfaced "agile" in
SW-3, whose canonical 2L variant records "in an agile DevOps team" and
whose absence left the JD's second required line unaddressed.

Deliberately NOT applied: the API term. claims.json SW-7 records only
"onboard source systems" and SW-2's ingestion is Oracle to Kafka, so
adding it would be vocabulary substitution rather than evidence. Left
open pending user confirmation.

Re-verified after the edit: validator PASS, forbidden-token scan PASS,
compile PASS at 2 pages, both pages re-rendered and inspected. Longest
bullet 34 words, still under the flag threshold. Document Quality 90 to
92 on relevance/terminology.

Still not submitted — held pending the Anforderungsniveau K comp answer.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01WpMtWFtYkGkjSMShuTgXiB
2026-08-21 17:09:27 +02:00

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:

  1. Evidence Fit: does the candidate actually meet the role, including hard gates?
  2. Document Quality: does the resume communicate the supported evidence clearly?
  3. 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

  1. Put employment records, project material, papers, or notes under knowledge_base/.
  2. Run setup-extract to create a source-grounded extraction.
  3. Review it, then run setup-build-kb to update canonical claims, experience files, bundles, and support data.

Apply to a role

  1. Run make-resume with the real JD.
  2. Review the requirement table and fit gate before approving content generation.
  3. Generate and validate the LaTeX resume.
  4. Run make-cl only when the session records a justified YES decision.
  5. Run critique for separate Evidence Fit, Document Quality, and Channel Strength findings.
  6. Run edit-resume for 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.

S
Description
No description provided
Readme MIT
11 MiB
Languages
TeX 76.2%
Python 23.8%