>_upskill
← back to registry

/critique

community

Re-critique existing resume/CV output files against a JD

>_ARPeeketi/claude-resume-kit/.claude/skills/critique·commit 69930e9

description: Re-critique existing resume/CV output files against a JD user-invocable: true

/critique

User input: $ARGUMENTS

Parse $ARGUMENTS:

  • Session file path (e.g., output/Acme/session_acme_engineer.md) → read session file, derive .tex paths from Output Files
  • .tex file path(s) + JD source (existing format) → backward compatible
  • Session name (e.g., acme_engineer) → find session file via derivation

If no CL .tex provided or found in session file, critique resume/CV alone (Part 7 adjustments noted below).

Safety Rules

Accuracy > Relevance > Impact > ATS > Brevity

Read config.md Provenance Flags. Verify every claim against that table. Check config.md KB Corrections Log — do not flag corrected items as errors. Use the email from config.md Personal Info — flag if a different email appears in output. FIXED sections (from config.md FIXED Sections) are template-locked — do not flag for editing. Flag only VARIABLE sections.

User Input During Execution

If the user provides feedback, corrections, or suggestions at any point:

  1. Acknowledge the input immediately
  2. If it changes scoring criteria or focus: adjust the critique accordingly
  3. Never restart — resume from current position

Startup

Read resume_builder/reference/shared_ops.md — Fresh Session Startup + Session File Derivation. Read CLAUDE.md — check Active Sessions and KB Corrections. Read config.md — load Provenance Flags, FIXED Sections, email. Find and read the session file for the .tex being critiqued (use derivation protocol from shared_ops.md).

Recovery check:

  • If CL not DONE in session file → "CL not yet generated. Run /make-cl first."
  • If Critique: CURRENT → "Already critiqued (score X/100). Re-run? Waiting for confirmation."
  • If Critique: STALE → "Edits made since last critique. Re-critiquing."
  • If Critique: PENDING → proceed

Protocol

  1. Read session file — specifically note:

    • Company Context → reviewer persona, "why this company"
    • Framing Strategy → intentional reframing decisions (flag only execution inconsistencies, not the strategy itself)
    • Cover Letter Plan → CL structure rationale
    • Critique Context → reviewer persona, competitive landscape, domain vocabulary
    • If session file lacks Company Context or Critique Context: do 1-2 web searches to fill gaps

  2. Read resume_builder/reference/critique_framework.md

  3. Read resume_builder/support/ai_fingerprint_rules.md — use Section 6 checklist in Part 7 verification

  4. Read the .tex file(s) — derive paths from session file Output Files, or from $ARGUMENTS

  5. Read the JD (path from $ARGUMENTS or session file)

  6. Read the relevant bundle (resume_builder/bundles/bundle_[role_type].md — from session file)

  7. Run char count:

    python3 resume_builder/helpers/char_count.py -f [resume|cv] [file.tex]

  8. Compile and visually verify:

    pdflatex -interaction=nonstopmode -output-directory=output/<FolderName> [file.tex]

    Use the Read tool to view the compiled PDF — check orphans, page fill, header wrapping. If compile fails: note "COMPILE FAILED — visual checks could not be verified" in Part 8.

  9. If a prior critique exists (output/<FolderName>/critique_<name>.md): read it and note previous score. 8b. Paper Hook Verification: If the CL cites named papers, PIs, programs, or publications, web-search to verify title, journal, year, and PI affiliation. Flag factual errors as Tier 1 fixes.

  10. Run the full critique per critique_framework.md. The output MUST contain ALL 8 sections (even if the framework file has partially compacted, produce every section):

    1. Domain-Specialist Lens — 7 elements: (a) Reviewer persona (b) Company context (c) JD vocabulary extraction (d) Domain vocabulary map (e) Gap ranking (fatal/serious/cosmetic) (f) Methodology transfer test (g) Competitive landscape
    2. Five-Perspective Read-Through — ATS, Recruiter (10s), HR (30s), HM (2min), Technical (10min) — each with verdict
    3. Eight-Dimension Scoring — weighted table summing to 100 (ATS 15%, Summary 10%, Skills 10%, Bullets 25%, Publications 10%, Narrative 15%, Visual 5%, Credibility 10%)
    4. Interview Likelihood — per-reader probability + ceiling analysis
    5. Tiered Improvements — Tier 1 (>=1pt each), Tier 2 (0.3-0.9), Tier 3 (<0.3)
    6. Interview Bridge Points — 5-7 resume-to-interview talking points
    7. Cover Letter Critique — 6 sub-checks (6A anti-patterns, 6B tailoring, 6C context-specific, 6D ATS, 6E structural, 6F package cohesion)
      • If no CL provided: Skip 6A-6E. Run 6F as resume standalone assessment — evaluate whether the resume earns an interview without a CL. Note: "Cover letter not provided — package cohesion not assessed."
    8. Post-Generation Verification — mechanical + content + structural checklists

  11. Save to output/<FolderName>/critique_<name>.md

  12. Update session file — Critique Summary (score, findings, tier 1 fixes), Status → Critique: CURRENT

  13. Update memory pointer with new score

Progress: "Reading session file for framing context..." / "Running ATS keyword scan — 16/20 match..." / "Scoring 8 dimensions..." / "Score: 87.0/100"

>>>>>> MANDATORY STOP <<<<<<

Present: score table + tier 1 actionable fixes + interview likelihood. You MUST wait for the user's explicit text response before continuing. If edits needed, tell user to run /edit-resume.

When user approves / says "looks good" / finalizes:

Verify all expected files exist in output/<FolderName>/:

  • session file, resume/CV .tex + .pdf, CL .tex + .pdf, critique .md
  • Compile artifacts (.aux, .log, .out) Confirm to user: "Package complete in output/<FolderName>/ — [list files]"