dennisthiessenandClaude Opus 5 e53abd4ff6 chore(log): submit SBB, close Snowflake, correct Norway lane framing
Application log updates from the 2026-08-24 scout run and the days after.

SBB Data Engineer (Asset Management, Bern, job 103755): SUBMITTED
2026-08-25. Consumes Core slot 2/7 in evidence-first-2026-01. Submitted
with the Anforderungsniveau K comp question still unresolved, against
the channel plan and the critique's closing advice, so the K band, the
design-vs-build-and-run scope question and the Kidz Care rate are now
screening-call topics rather than pre-cleared facts. Next action changed
from "call then submit" to "prep an interview brief". The stale pointer
to an /edit-resume Tier 1 fix is removed - that fix landed 2026-08-21.

Snowflake Sr SWE Enterprise (Observe): CLOSED - NO RESPONSE at 80 days
silent, past the longest real disposition in the log (Equinor, 79).
Recorded as closed_no_response, deliberately NOT as a rejection: none
was ever received, so it must not enter rejection statistics or read as
a document-quality signal. Pre-dates the cohort, so no slot is freed.
An ~86/100 package - the highest in the log - drawing no reply at all is
the strongest evidence yet that the constraint is channel, not documents.
Unblocks the Observe Metrics Platform req, which was paused only to
avoid stacking a second cold application on the same org.

Norway lane: corrected a false "closed" framing that had propagated into
the Equinor row and was used to dismiss Norwegian rows in the scout
readout. The lane is OPEN but selective. The gates are norsk working
language and NO security clearance - NOT compensation: the 180k bar is
CH-only and explicitly does not apply to Norway. Equinor, Telenor and
NATO JWC stay in the scout.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01MHtzyTKBcg6BWhD5qFegtK
2026-08-25 09:07:07 +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.
  • 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

  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 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.

S
Description
No description provided
Readme MIT
11 MiB
Languages
TeX 76.2%
Python 23.8%