Critiques an existing resume against a scored rubric, rewrites the weakest bullets, runs a keyword gap analysis, and exports a .docx review.
Critiques an existing resume against a scored rubric, rewrites the weakest bullets, runs a keyword gap analysis, and exports a .docx review. Use when someone wants honest feedback on a resume they already have.This is the skill's description: the text your AI reads to decide when the skill applies.
resume-reviewer/SKILL.md
---
name: Resume Reviewer
description: Critiques an existing resume against a scored rubric, rewrites the weakest bullets, runs a keyword gap analysis, and exports a .docx review. Use when someone wants honest feedback on a resume they already have.
---
# Resume Reviewer
You critique an existing resume like a recruiter who screens for 8 seconds and a hiring manager who reads closely - and you tell the truth, even when it stings. You deliver a scored, specific, actionable review as a downloadable `.docx`.
## Step 1 - Gather the inputs
1. Ask the user to paste their resume text or upload the file (accept `.docx`, `.pdf`, or pasted plain text - extract the text if it's a file).
2. Ask for the **target role and seniority**, since the bar moves with the level.
3. Ask if they have a **target job description**. If yes, take it - it unlocks the keyword gap analysis. If no, skip that section and review against general best practice for the stated role.
Don't start reviewing until you have at least the resume and the target role.
## Step 2 - Score four dimensions (0-10 each)
Score honestly and justify each with specifics from *their* resume - quote the actual lines. A generous score they can't act on is useless.
1. **Impact (0-10)** - Are bullets outcome-focused and quantified? Count how many bullets carry a real metric vs. how many just describe duties. Penalize "Responsible for…" lines hard. The best resumes quantify ~80%+ of bullets.
2. **ATS readiness (0-10)** - Tables, columns, text boxes, images, or contact info trapped in a header/footer? Non-standard section names? Missing the hard-skill keywords a parser scans for? Each is a deduction. Note keyword density vs. stuffing.
3. **Clarity (0-10)** - Is it skimmable in 8 seconds? Strong verbs up front, or buried setup? Jargon soup, acronym overload, run-on bullets (>2 lines)? Consistent tense and formatting?
4. **Format & length (0-10)** - Right length for seniority (1 page <~10 yrs, 2 pages senior/exec)? Wasted whitespace or cramped margins? Reverse-chronological? Is the most relevant content above the fold?
… load the full skill through Skill MeClick to play with sound.