القائمة
Audit job posting for quality, realism, internal consistency, and market alignment with 100-point scoring
التثبيت باستخدام Codex أو Claude انسخ هذا Prompt والصقه في Codex أو Claude أو مساعد آخر ليراجع صفحة Skill ويثبّتها لك.
استنادا إلى تصنيف SOC المهني
Build a complete resume through all 3 steps (draft, provenance check, final)
Initialize JobOps workspace - configure output directories, install templates, and optionally migrate legacy files
Assess candidate against job posting using pre-created scoring rubric
Compare assessment files across application folders under applications_root
Interview-driven generation of three market-validated ideal-role archetypes (Anchor, Stretch, Pivot) from career history, elicited preferences, and high-scoring assessment patterns
Generate a strategic cover letter with requirements-matching table from Step 3 resume
| name | auditjobposting |
| description | Audit job posting for quality, realism, internal consistency, and market alignment with 100-point scoring |
| disable-model-invocation | true |
Read .jobops/config.json. If missing, stop with:
JOBOPS NOT CONFIGURED Run /jobops:setup to initialize your workspace.
Use config.directories.<key> for all file paths in this skill.
Use config.preferences.cultural_profile if this skill generates resume-style content.
Use config.preferences.default_jurisdiction if this skill has jurisdiction-sensitive logic (crisis/legal skills accept --jurisdiction=<ISO-3166-2> to override).
This skill writes to a per-application folder. Before writing any output:
{Company}_{Role}_{YYYYMMDD} from the job-posting filename, or honor --app=<slug> if supplied. The slug MUST be canonical: a leading PascalCase {Company} token (matching the Company_Intelligence/{Company}/ folder so OSINT links), a PascalCase {Role} (underscores between words allowed), and a trailing compact 8-digit date (20260519 — no hyphens, no time). Reject leading date/time prefixes such as 2026-04-15_214414_...; if the source filename carries one, recompose it into canonical form ({Company}_{Role}_{YYYYMMDD}) before composing the folder path.{config.directories.applications_root}/{app_slug}/.resume/cover-letter/assessment/interview/mkdir -p it, then copy
{config.directories.job_postings}/{filename} → {app_slug}/job_posting.md
so the pinned JD cannot silently change under completed work. Ensure the pinned copy
begins with YAML front matter carrying output_type: job_posting: if the source JD
already has a front-matter block, add the key to it; otherwise wrap a new block
(--- / output_type: job_posting / source_jd: {filename} / ---) above the JD body.--app=<distinct-slug>.assessment/job_audit.md.Analyze the job posting at {config.directories.job_postings}/{{ARG1}} (add .md extension if needed) using a rigorous 100-point scoring rubric that identifies red flags, unrealistic expectations, and posting quality issues that job seekers should consider before applying.
Many job postings contain:
This audit helps job seekers make informed decisions about which opportunities are worth pursuing.
Evaluates whether the posting is internally coherent and free of contradictions.
| Score | Criteria |
|---|---|
| 8 | Title perfectly reflects seniority level; responsibilities match exactly; clear career level positioning |
| 6 | Minor misalignment (e.g., "Senior" title with some junior-level tasks mixed in) |
| 4 | Notable disconnect (e.g., "Manager" title but no direct reports mentioned) |
| 2 | Significant mismatch (e.g., "Junior" title with senior architect responsibilities) |
| 0 | Complete contradiction or deliberately misleading title |
Evaluation Checklist:
| Score | Criteria |
|---|---|
| 7 | Experience years perfectly calibrated to role level; clear required vs. preferred distinction |
| 5 | Minor inconsistencies (e.g., "5-10 years" range too broad for clarity) |
| 3 | Conflicting requirements (e.g., "entry-level" but "5+ years required") |
| 1 | Impossible requirements (e.g., more years than technology exists) |
| 0 | Completely unrealistic or contradictory experience demands |
Evaluation Checklist:
| Score | Criteria |
|---|---|
| 5 | Every required skill directly maps to stated responsibilities |
| 4 | Most skills connect to duties; minor orphan skills |
| 2 | Significant skills listed that never appear in responsibilities |
| 1 | Skills list appears copy-pasted; poor relevance to actual duties |
| 0 | Skills and duties completely disconnected |
Evaluation Checklist:
| Score | Criteria |
|---|---|
| 5 | Clear manager, team structure, dotted lines all specified |
| 4 | Most relationships clear; minor ambiguity |
| 2 | Vague structure (e.g., "cross-functional team" without definition) |
| 1 | Contradictory structure (e.g., "individual contributor" but "manage team") |
| 0 | No reporting structure provided or completely unclear |
Evaluation Checklist:
Evaluates whether the requirements reflect reality in the current job market.
| Score | Criteria |
|---|---|
| 8 | All experience requirements are mathematically possible given technology ages |
| 6 | Minor stretch (e.g., asking for 5 years in a 6-year-old technology) |
| 4 | Borderline impossible (e.g., 8 years in a 7-year-old technology) |
| 2 | Clearly impossible for some technologies (e.g., 10 years of GPT-4 experience) |
| 0 | Multiple impossible timeline requirements; hiring manager ignorance evident |
Technology Release Reference (verify and calculate fresh age):
Use the release years above (or updated research) to calculate how many years of experience are mathematically possible relative to the current year—never rely on stale "~X years old" notes.
Evaluation Checklist:
| Score | Criteria |
|---|---|
| 7 | Coherent skill set achievable by qualified professionals |
| 5 | Ambitious but possible (e.g., full-stack + some DevOps) |
| 3 | Unicorn-adjacent (e.g., full-stack + DevOps + ML + mobile) |
| 1 | Clear unicorn hunting (5+ distinct specializations required) |
| 0 | Absurd combinations (e.g., neurosurgeon + tax attorney + ML engineer) |
Skill Domain Categories for Analysis:
Evaluation Checklist:
| Score | Criteria |
|---|---|
| 5 | Candidate matching this profile exists in meaningful numbers |
| 4 | Pool is small but candidates exist |
| 2 | Very rare combination; pool extremely limited |
| 1 | Theoretical candidates only; virtually impossible to find |
| 0 | No such person exists; posting is fantasy |
Evaluation Checklist:
| Score | Criteria |
|---|---|
| 5 | Requirements match local talent pool and market conditions |
| 4 | Slight mismatch (e.g., Bay Area expectations in smaller market) |
| 2 | Significant mismatch (e.g., no remote for niche role in small city) |
| 1 | Completely unrealistic (e.g., demanding Stanford PhD in rural area, no remote) |
| 0 | Location requirements make role unfillable |
Evaluation Checklist:
Evaluates whether compensation is realistic and competitive.
| Score | Criteria |
|---|---|
| 7 | Compensation clearly competitive for stated responsibilities |
| 5 | Market rate; neither exceptional nor concerning |
| 3 | Below market but potentially offset by other factors |
| 1 | Significantly below market for responsibilities described |
| 0 | Insultingly low; suggests exploitation or role inflation |
Research Required:
| Score | Criteria |
|---|---|
| 5 | Pay matches required experience level appropriately |
| 4 | Slight disconnect; acceptable range |
| 2 | Notable mismatch (senior experience, mid-level pay) |
| 1 | Severe mismatch (expert requirements, entry-level pay) |
| 0 | Exploitative (demanding 10+ years for intern-level wages) |
| Score | Criteria |
|---|---|
| 4 | Pay appropriate for cost of living in specified location |
| 3 | Acceptable for location; could be better |
| 2 | Below market for the area |
| 1 | Pay doesn't match location costs (Bay Area pay in Bay Area = fine; Midwest pay in Bay Area = problem) |
| 0 | Pay makes role unlivable in required location |
| Score | Criteria |
|---|---|
| 4 | Clear salary range + bonus + equity + benefits outlined |
| 3 | Base salary clear; other comp vague |
| 2 | "Competitive" compensation only; no specifics |
| 1 | No compensation mentioned; must ask |
| 0 | Evasive about compensation; red flag language |
Unavailable compensation data: When the posting omits explicit pay details, mark 3.4 according to the level of opacity but still score 3.1-3.3 using the best available market proxies (Levels.fyi, historical internal data, similar postings). Note the inference source inside your audit so candidates understand the confidence level.
Evaluates whether this is a well-defined, achievable role.
| Score | Criteria |
|---|---|
| 6 | Clear, focused role with coherent responsibilities |
| 4 | Some scope creep but core role is clear |
| 2 | Two distinct jobs combined (e.g., "developer + sys admin") |
| 1 | Three or more distinct jobs combined |
| 0 | "Everything" role; undefined chaos |
Evaluation Checklist:
| Score | Criteria |
|---|---|
| 5 | Specific, actionable responsibilities with clear deliverables |
| 4 | Mostly clear; some vague items |
| 2 | Heavy use of vague language ("drive innovation", "synergize cross-functionally") |
| 1 | Responsibilities are buzzword soup |
| 0 | No clear idea what person would actually do |
Red Flag Phrases:
| Score | Criteria |
|---|---|
| 5 | Clear KPIs, success measures, or outcome expectations |
| 4 | Implied metrics; could be inferred |
| 2 | Vague success criteria; unclear how performance is measured |
| 1 | No indication of what success looks like |
| 0 | Contradictory success signals |
| Score | Criteria |
|---|---|
| 4 | Clear career progression, learning opportunities, advancement path |
| 3 | Some growth potential mentioned |
| 2 | Growth vaguely implied |
| 1 | No growth path; appears dead-end |
| 0 | Negative signals (high turnover language, "urgent hire") |
Evaluates organizational health and cultural signals.
| Score | Criteria |
|---|---|
| 3 | Clear, professional, specific language throughout |
| 2 | Generally professional; some buzzword use |
| 1 | Heavy buzzword reliance; vague corporate speak |
| 0 | Unprofessional, hyperbolic, or desperate-sounding |
Red Flag Language:
| Score | Criteria |
|---|---|
| 3 | Positive signals: stable team, clear mission, reasonable expectations |
| 2 | Neutral; no obvious concerns |
| 1 | Some yellow flags: urgency, turnover hints, defensive language |
| 0 | Multiple red flags: chaos signals, unrealistic demands, desperation |
Research Required:
| Score | Criteria |
|---|---|
| 2 | Clear application process, timeline, interview stages |
| 1 | Some process info; could be clearer |
| 0 | No process info; black box hiring |
| Score | Criteria |
|---|---|
| 2 | Reasonable expectations; balance valued |
| 1 | Neutral or unclear |
| 0 | Red flags: on-call 24/7, "flexible hours" meaning always working, etc. |
| Score Range | Grade | Interpretation | Recommendation |
|---|---|---|---|
| 90-100 | A | Excellent posting | Strongly pursue; well-crafted opportunity |
| 80-89 | B | Good posting | Worth applying; minor concerns only |
| 70-79 | C | Fair posting | Apply with caution; clarify concerns in interview |
| 60-69 | D | Poor posting | Significant issues; proceed with low expectations |
| 50-59 | F | Problematic | Major red flags; likely organizational problems |
| Below 50 | F- | Avoid | Posting suggests dysfunction or unicorn hunting |
✓ Reading job posting from {config.directories.job_postings}/{{ARG1}}
Read the job posting file and extract:
Use web search to gather:
Access constraints: If the CLI session lacks network access or required sources are paywalled, rely on previously gathered benchmarks, local reference material, or reasonable industry heuristics. Document the missing research explicitly in your audit (e.g., "Glassdoor data unavailable in offline mode") so reviewers know which assumptions require follow-up.
Technology Age Verification
Salary Benchmarking
Company Intelligence
Role Market Analysis
For each of the 5 categories:
Create a detailed report with:
---
job_file: {config.directories.job_postings}/{{ARG1}}
role: <role title>
company: <company name>
location: <location>
posting_date: <date from job posting, or "Not specified">
generated_by: /auditjob
generated_on: <ISO8601 timestamp>
output_type: job_posting_audit
status: final
version: 1.0
overall_score: <XX/100>
grade: <A/B/C/D/F>
recommendation: <pursue/caution/avoid>
---
Immediately after the YAML frontmatter, display a prominent header block with key job information:
# Job Posting Quality Audit Report
## [JOB TITLE]
**Company:** [COMPANY NAME]
**Posting Date:** [DATE from job posting, e.g., "Nov 24, 2025" or "Not specified"]
**Location:** [LOCATION]
---
This header MUST appear at the very top of the report (after frontmatter) so readers immediately know which job is being audited. Extract the posting date from within the job posting file if available (look for "Date:", "Posted:", "Deadline:", or similar fields).
For each category, provide:
Recommended table template (expand rows as needed):
| Category | Subcategory | Score | Evidence & Notes |
|---|---|---|---|
| Internal Consistency | 1.1 Title-Seniority-Responsibility Alignment | 6/8 | e.g., "Manager" title but only IC duties |
| ... | ... | ... | ... |
Based on audit findings, generate 5-7 questions the candidate should ask to clarify concerns:
Resolve {app_slug} per the Application Path Resolution protocol at the top of this skill, and ensure {applications_root}/{app_slug}/assessment/ exists (mkdir -p). Pin the JD to {applications_root}/{app_slug}/job_posting.md if not already present.
Save Location: {applications_root}/{app_slug}/assessment/job_audit.md
This co-locates the audit alongside any rubric/assessment that already lives in the same app folder, and the app folder itself is the self-contained container — no timestamped sub-folder is required.
Given the HONI_Data_Services_Manager.md posting:
Internal Consistency Issues:
Market Realism Issues:
Scope Issues:
This type of analysis should be applied systematically to the target posting.