An audit of all 18 packages in output/ (368 bullets) found one rhythm
running through every document: 45% of bullets used the same "X, Y and
Z" triple, and the SBB package reached 85% - 11 of 13 bullets, every
Swisscom and Bosch line - plus two adjacent bullets both opening
"Build and...".
This is a style finding, not a truth finding. Every bullet was accurate.
The corpus is clean on the axes that actually signal generated text: no
AI vocabulary (0 hits for leverage/spearheaded/robust/passionate and 56
others across 35 documents), prose em-dashes at 0.08/bullet, and PDF
metadata carrying nothing but MiKTeX pdfTeX with empty Author/Title
(0 AI tokens and 0 generator-term leaks across 69 PDFs). What is left is
cadence: ten bullets sharing one three-beat rhythm read as machine-made
even when nothing in them is false.
Guarded deliberately so it cannot do harm. cadence_checks() emits WARN
and never ERROR, the critique deduction caps at 1 point, and both the
reference and the docstring state that no claim, scope or hedged verb
may be bent to satisfy rhythm. An anti-monotony rule with teeth would be
worse than the problem - it would pressure a future run into loosening a
scoped claim to vary a sentence.
Thresholds are calibrated on the corpus, not guessed. Position length
spreads are bimodal (1-9 words, then 15-17), so the check flags a spread
of <=4, the tight tail at ~28% of positions; the first draft used <=6
and flagged the median. Also fixed the opening-verb extractor, which
read \textbf{Owned ...} as the word "textbf" and produced six false
positives on one document. Per-package warnings now run 0-3.
Docs: resume_reference.md 7a + verification step, critical_rules.md 7a,
critique_framework.md mechanics row, CLAUDE.md corrections log.
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.