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
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.