Use when evaluating technical claims in high-depth content section units (예: 문제 해결 / 상세 프로젝트 / 경력 기술서). Defines the 5-axis framework (A1 Technical Credibility, A2 Causal Honesty, A3 Outcome Presence & Clarity, A4 Ownership & Scope, A5 Scanability) plus 2 critical authenticity rules (R-Phys, R-Cross) used by tech-claim-examiner agent. Verb-scope inflation (previously a separate rule) is now caught by A4 integrity_suspected sub-flag (see a4-ownership-scope.md).
Installation
Install with Codex or Claude Copy this prompt, paste it into Codex, Claude, or another assistant, and let it review the skill page and install it for you.
Use when evaluating technical claims in high-depth content section units (예: 문제 해결 / 상세 프로젝트 / 경력 기술서). Defines the 5-axis framework (A1 Technical Credibility, A2 Causal Honesty, A3 Outcome Presence & Clarity, A4 Ownership & Scope, A5 Scanability) plus 2 critical authenticity rules (R-Phys, R-Cross) used by tech-claim-examiner agent. Verb-scope inflation (previously a separate rule) is now caught by A4 integrity_suspected sub-flag (see a4-ownership-scope.md).
Overview
This document is the authoritative rubric definition used by the tech-claim-examiner agent to evaluate technical claims in high-depth content section units (예: 문제 해결 / 상세 프로젝트 / 경력 기술서). It does NOT perform evaluation itself — it defines the evaluation contract that the examiner follows.
The rubric consists of:
Five evaluation axes (A1–A5): The core evaluation framework. Each axis produces one of three verdicts (PASS / FAIL / P1). All five axes use an absolute standard. A5 is additionally structure-agnostic.
Two critical authenticity rules (R-Phys, R-Cross): Integrity gates evaluated separately from the axes. Both can trigger automatic REQUEST_CHANGES regardless of A1–A4 verdicts and structural_verdict. Verb-scope inflation (previously a separate rule, retired in v4) is now caught by A4 integrity_suspected sub-flag (see a4-ownership-scope.md).
Evaluation structure:
Layer
Components
Verdict contribution
Depth
A1, A2
Absolute
Significance
A3, A4
Absolute
Presentation
A5
Absolute (structure-agnostic)
Integrity
R-Phys, R-Cross
Auto-fail triggers (verb-scope inflation rule retired in v4 — see A4 integrity_suspected)
Downstream consumers: resume-forge and review-resume skills consume the examiner's output schema (see output-schema.md).
Why 5 Axes (Rationale)
The previous 11-axis system (v1) was retired by agent-council unanimous vote. The core problems with v1:
Over-engineered: Sub-axes (E3a, E3b, sub-dimensions with weighted formulas) added evaluation overhead without improving signal quality. Evaluators spent more time computing scores than assessing claims.
Backend-biased: The v1 depth criteria implicitly favored distributed systems and infrastructure work. Frontend, data, and product-engineering bullets systematically underscored due to structural mismatch.
Structurally rigid: Phase A/B/C routing imposed a fixed evaluation order that created decision-tree overhead. Simple bullets required the same ceremonial path as complex ones.
Catch-22 default-FAIL: The "FAIL unless proven" stance combined with the prohibition on inference created a rubric where legitimately strong bullets failed due to formatting choices rather than substance gaps.
The 5-axis redesign compresses the evaluation into five clear questions:
Question
Axis
Does this bullet reveal technical judgment?
A1
Is the cause-and-effect logic and arithmetic internally consistent?
A2
Is there a stated outcome that matters (tech or business)?
A3
Is the ownership claim coherent with the described scope?
A4
Can a recruiter extract the key message within 6–30 seconds of scanning?
A5
These five questions cover the full evaluation surface without sub-weighting formulas or cascading phase routing.
Anti-pattern → Axis Traceability Matrix
Common resume bullet anti-patterns, the axis that catches them, and the verdict tier produced.
Anti-pattern
Axis
Verdict
Name-only mention (도구 이름만 나열, 메커니즘 없음)
A1
FAIL or P1
Vanity outcome (팀 만족도 향상 등 정량 metric 없는 결과)
A3
FAIL
Verb inflation (주도/총괄 + scope marker 없음)
A4
FAIL or A4 integrity_suspected
Missing baseline (응답 시간 80% 단축 with no before/after window)
A2 (Rule 1)
P1 (Soft)
Fuzzy noun outcome (성능 개선 / 처리량 향상 정량화 없음)
A3 (or A2 Rule 6)
P1
Offline-as-production (load-test 수치를 production metric으로 표기)
A2 (Rule 3)
FAIL (Hard)
Arithmetic error (claimed delta math 일치 안 함)
A2 (Rule 1)
FAIL (Hard)
Five Axes — Quick Reference
Axis
Standard
One-line
Reference file
A1 Technical Credibility
Absolute
기술적 판단이 드러나는가 (5/5 signals strict)
a1-technical-credibility.md
A2 Causal Honesty
Absolute
원인→결과 logic + arithmetic 일관성
a2-causal-honesty.md
A3 Outcome Presence & Clarity
Absolute
tech OR business 결과 명시 (so what?)
a3-outcome-presence-clarity.md
A4 Ownership & Scope
Absolute
동사-scope coherence (led/built/contributed)
a4-ownership-scope.md
A5 Scanability
Absolute (structure-agnostic)
6-30s scan에 핵심 파악 가능
a5-scanability.md
Axis Verdicts
Each axis (A1–A5) produces one of three verdicts:
Verdict
Meaning
PASS
The claim satisfies the axis criterion with evidence present in the bullet text
FAIL
The claim clearly violates the axis criterion; revision required
P1
The claim partially satisfies the criterion; improvement recommended but not blocking
All five axes (A1–A5) use an Absolute standard: the passing bar does not move with experience level. candidate_context.years is referenced only by A4 for scope evaluation, not by A1.
A5 is structure-agnostic: it does not require a specific format (e.g., "action verb + metric + outcome"). It asks only whether the core message is extractable by a scanning reader within 6–30 seconds, regardless of how the bullet is structured.
A1 Evaluation Criteria
Question: Does this bullet reveal technical judgment? (이 bullet에 기술적 판단이 드러나는가?)
PASS — Bullet body explicitly shows all 5 of the following signals:
Technology selection — a specific system/algorithm/pattern deliberately chosen
Mechanism — how the chosen technology works (partitioning key, memoization strategy, eviction policy, cutover path, etc.)
Trade-off / risk — cost/risk accepted, or rejection-reason for a rejected alternative
Rationale — context-based "why X over Y"
FAIL:
Tool/library name drop only (no rationale)
Outcome metrics only, no selection or mechanism grounding
Generic verbs ("도입", "구축", "개선", "활용") with no what/how/why
Feature noun-phrases ("seamless multi-step flow") masquerading as mechanism
P1 (canonical — a1-technical-credibility.md defers to this): Exactly 4 of 5 signals present (one signal absent), OR all 5 of 5 signals present but at least one signal is at name-level only (no mechanism or rationale behind it). Either condition fails the 5/5 strict PASS bar. Not vacuous enough to FAIL — examiner returns improvement hint targeting the shallowest signal.
Section-wide signal mapping: real-world에서 signal이 sub-bullets로 분산 가능 — section 전체에서 매핑 허용. 단일 bullet line에 모든 signal이 집중되지 않아도 section 전체에서 5 signals 모두 확인되면 PASS 판정 가능 — 단일 bullet line에 집중되지 않아도 허용.
Years are not referenced for A1. Ownership signals belong to A4, not A1.
Authenticity as Critical Rules
Authenticity is NOT a scored axis. It is a set of integrity gates evaluated as critical rules by the examiner. Rules are checked after all five axes are scored, and their triggered status feeds directly into final_verdict.
R-Phys — Physical Impossibility
Trigger condition: A numeric claim is physically or mathematically impossible given the described context.
Examples of R-Phys violations:
"Reduced latency by 50,000%" (percentage improvement cannot exceed 100% of the baseline for latency reduction)
"Increased throughput from 10 RPS to 10,000,000 RPS with a config change" (plausible magnitude would require hardware, not config)
Effect: Automatic REQUEST_CHANGES regardless of A1–A4 verdicts and structural_verdict. The examiner must name the specific number and explain why it is physically incoherent.
R-Cross — Cross-Entry Contradiction
Trigger condition: The claim directly contradicts another entry on the same resume, and both cannot be simultaneously true.
Example: Entry A claims "Designed and implemented the entire payment microservice from scratch." Entry B claims "Contributed to payment microservice API design alongside a team of 8 engineers." These contradict each other on ownership scope.
Applicability: R-Cross는 항상 emit된다. cross-entry context가 제공되지 않은 경우 triggered: false로 기록하고, reasoning에 "cross-entry context not provided"와 같이 absence를 명시한다.
Effect: Automatic REQUEST_CHANGES regardless of A1–A4 verdicts and structural_verdict. The examiner must cite both entries and identify the specific contradiction.
Verb-Scope Inflation — Retired in v4
The verb-scope inflation check (previously a standalone critical rule) is retired as a separate rule in v4. Detection is now handled by the A4 integrity_suspected sub-flag (see a4-ownership-scope.md). Detailed worked examples for R-Phys and R-Cross are in agents/tech-claim-examiner.md.
Evaluation Protocol
The examiner evaluates axes sequentially: A1 → A2 → A3 → A4 → A5. After all five axes, critical rules are checked.
Reasoning-Before-Verdict
For each axis, the examiner MUST:
Write technical reasoning first — what evidence is present, what is absent, what questions the claim raises
Provide an evidence_quote — a direct excerpt from the bullet text supporting the verdict
Assign the verdict last — PASS / FAIL / P1 derived from the reasoning, not assumed upfront
If the reasoning does not support the verdict, the verdict is wrong. Verdict-first reasoning is prohibited.
Critical Rule Invariant
After A1–A4 are scored and A5 emits structural_verdict, the following invariant is applied before generating final_verdict:
IF r_phys.triggered == true OR r_cross.triggered == true
THEN final_verdict = REQUEST_CHANGES
(regardless of A1–A4 verdicts and structural_verdict)
Final Verdict Derivation (when invariant does not apply)
Condition
final_verdict
No A1–A4 axis is FAIL AND count(P1 across A1-A4) < 3 AND structural_verdict ∈ {PASS, P1}
APPROVE
Any of A1–A4 is FAIL
REQUEST_CHANGES
count(P1 across A1-A4) ≥ 3
REQUEST_CHANGES
structural_verdict == FAIL
REQUEST_CHANGES
Note: A5 verdict는 structural_verdict로 노출된다. structural_verdict == FAIL AND A1-A4 모두 PASS/P1 AND count(P1 across A1-A4) < 3인 경우 final_verdict = REQUEST_CHANGES를 트리거하되, consumer routing은 source-extraction이 아닌 readability-fix lane으로 처리된다. See output-schema.md §A5 Co-failure Disambiguation and a5-scanability.md.
P1 verdicts do not block APPROVE but are surfaced in interview_hints as improvement recommendations.
Output schema details (field names, types, required/optional) are in output-schema.md.
Output Format
The examiner's full output schema is defined in output-schema.md. Key fields:
INTERNAL fields (reasoning trace, not shown to candidates):
Field
Description
verdicts.a1_* through verdicts.a5_*
Per-axis reasoning, evidence_quote, verdict
verdicts.a4_ownership_scope.integrity_suspected
A4 verb-scope structural overclaim flag (bool)
critical_rule_flags.r_phys
triggered (bool), reasoning (string)
critical_rule_flags.r_cross
triggered (bool), reasoning (string)
PUBLIC fields (returned to downstream caller):
Canonical definition: output-schema.md §Output Schema. 이 테이블은 downstream consumer를 위한 요약이며 schema 변경 시 반드시 동기 수정.
Field
Description
schema_version
string — output schema contract version (e.g., v4.1)
All v1 axis tokens (E1–E6, R1–R5, E3b, Constraint Cascade, CASCADING, LISTED, FLAT, Narrative Necessity, Layer 2, Phase A/B/C) are retired. They must not appear in examiner output or downstream skill prompts outside of this migration reference.
Completion Checklist
The examiner verifies all of the following before delivering output:
