Rejected 2026-08-27, no interview, ~28 days after submission. Recorded
in all four places that track an outcome: cohort state, decision log,
the Active Sessions row and the session file's status block.
The cohort slot is not freed. A rejection consumes an attempt the same
way a submission does, so the Adjacent count stays 2/2 and the cohort
stays 4/10 - unlike the Google FDE III and AWS FDE no-gos, which were
declined before a package existed.
Recorded as rejected_no_interview on the evidence: nothing in the log
shows any contact after submission. Recruiter-vs-hiring-manager
disposition is a tracked cohort variable, so this is one edit away from
being corrected if a screen did happen.
The package was validator PASS with no Tier 1 truth findings and the
follow-up email to Per Olav Marthinsen was never actioned, making this a
pure cold submit. A cold-channel no-interview rejection does not
implicate document quality on its own. That is now 2 of 4 cohort
applications rejected without interview, both cold, which fits the
channel thesis already in the log - and application_strategy.md forbids
reacting to a single rejection, so no positioning or targeting changed.
The Norway lane is explicitly not closed. NATO JWC Stavanger is still
live and strong Norwegian employers remain in scope; both the row and
the decision note say so, because with Aker BP closed the earlier
Equinor note ("lane now reduced to the open Aker BP application") would
otherwise read as an implied closure.
Submission date left inconsistent on purpose: the contemporaneous
records say 2026-07-29, the retrospective ones 2026-07-30. Both now
carry a note pointing at the other rather than one being overwritten.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01JMcHCsTKWvVzqyLChF5ckk
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.