dennisthiessenandClaude Opus 5 ce8619b8e3 fix(F14): call keyword relevance what it is, and teach it German
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
2026-09-11 19:54:17 +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.
  • 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

  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 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.

S
Description
No description provided
Readme MIT
13 MiB
0 Stars 1 Watchers 0 Forks
Languages
TeX 66.6%
Python 33.4%