The scout presented a keyword count as "Strong fit" / "Medium fit". It is neither: it measures how many profile keywords a posting echoes, and knows nothing about his evidence, the hard requirements, the level, the language or the commute. - Buckets renamed to keyword relevance, with "NOT a fit judgement" in the heading, and score_job documents the limit with the review's own example: "Senior AI Engineer, Generative AI / LLM / RAG" scores 12 against "Senior Data Engineer" at 3, while the second is much closer to what he can evidence. - German job vocabulary added. Every German-language posting used to score near zero regardless of fit, which is the real reason RUAG, SBB, BKW, PostFinance and Kdo Cy all needed a _score_floor. The floor was a workaround; the missing terms were the defect. "Senior Dateningenieur" 1 -> 3, level with its English twin. - Platform/DevOps vocabulary was simply absent: devsecops, platform engineer, platform automation, infrastructure as code, observability, site reliability. The Kdo Cy "ICT-System Engineer (DevSecOps / Platform Automation)" scored ZERO before this - a posting whose requirement lines match his canonical evidence almost line for line. It now scores 10. - Noise is unaffected: "Office Manager:in Administration" still scores 0. Floors were left in place so this diff stays attributable; they can likely be reduced now that the vocabulary exists. 34/34 tests pass; validated on a live 37-company run. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01Qej5SBvhcbGXHwLqNWiskM
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.
- Record fit and outcomes without application quotas; a fit classification is a preparation signal.
- 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 uncapped application record (use summary --all for older applications too):
python resume_builder/helpers/cohort_tracker.py summary
job_scout/state/applications.json owns current status and event history. The old cohort JSON and
resume_builder/reference/current_applications.md are generated views. Update status without erasing interview history:
python resume_builder/helpers/cohort_tracker.py update --id <application-id> --date YYYY-MM-DD --event interview_held --note "Interview completed"
python resume_builder/helpers/cohort_tracker.py update --id <application-id> --date YYYY-MM-DD --outcome withdrawn_by_candidate --note "Reason"
python resume_builder/helpers/application_records.py --check
Use application_records.py --render to recover stale generated views. A classification that differs
from its numeric rubric needs --fit-override-reason; it is never silently relabelled.
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.