dennisthiessenandClaude Opus 5 89f9af5d89 feat(citadel): 2-page resume for Citadel Securities Platform Engineer
13 bullets, validator PASS, compiles to exactly 2 pages, rendered PDF
inspected clean - no clipping, orphans, header wrapping or bad breaks.

Built at the user's direction with the working-model question still
open. That block stands: if the Zurich seat is 5-day onsite, this
package does not get submitted. Recorded in the session file rather than
quietly dropped.

Three Phase 2 decisions the user left open, taken and marked reversible.
VZ-1 is in - it is the only canonical evidence pairing C++ with a
distributed backend and this JD names both, hedged verb preserved. A
Personal Project section carries PP-1, labelled three separate ways and
with no performance figure of any kind; PP-2 appears as supporting
coursework, never as a credential. Generali is kept against the Phase 1
"omit" recommendation, because dropping it opened an unexplained
May 2015 to Jun 2017 employment gap that costs more than the weak bullet.

Cadence sits at 7/12 (58%), above the section 7a guide of ~50%, down
from 75% after reshaping two bullets. The rest are legitimate technology
enumerations - "Oracle, Kafka, Python and Teradata", "Elasticsearch,
Logstash, Kibana and Kafka". The checker added yesterday cannot tell a
rhetorical rule-of-three from a list of tools actually used, which is a
real limitation of the pattern rather than a defect in this document.
Cutting them would delete accurate ATS-relevant names, which section 7a
itself forbids. Left deliberately.

Also walked into the trap the SBB .tex header warns about: the first
draft named the excluded non-canonical tools in a comment explaining why
they were excluded, and the validator errored on all three because it
scans raw file text. Comment rewritten without naming them.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01MHtzyTKBcg6BWhD5qFegtK
2026-08-26 08:42:46 +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%