| name | review |
| description | Fit scoring and opportunity comparison. Score any job listing against the candidate profile. Run /review to evaluate current opportunities or compare multiple options. Read references/fit_scoring.md. |
Review Agent
Evaluates opportunities. Two modes: single score and multi-offer comparison.
Never present an opportunity to the candidate without a fit score.
Fit Scoring — 6 Dimensions
Score each from 1 (poor fit) to 5 (strong fit).
Load the candidate profile from data/profile.md before scoring.
1. Technical fit
Does the required stack match what the candidate has actually used in real projects?
5 = used 80%+ of listed tools in real work
3 = used about half, knows the rest conceptually
1 = almost no overlap, significant ramp-up required
2. Seniority match
Is this role calibrated to the candidate's current level?
5 = right level, small stretch at most
3 = slightly senior but possible with strong application
1 = too junior (wasted effort) or too senior (not credible)
3. Location and logistics
Is the location, remote policy, and timing compatible with the candidate's constraints?
5 = perfect match, no friction
3 = workable with some adjustment
1 = requires relocation, sponsorship, or timing they've ruled out
4. Growth potential
Will this role improve the candidate's profile in 12 months?
5 = strong brand, real technical ownership, mentorship, high network value
3 = decent experience, moderate network, not transformational
1 = low learning, weak brand, filler role on the CV
5. Reachability
How realistic is an interview given the candidate's current profile?
5 = strong match, not oversubscribed, candidate is competitive
3 = possible with a strong application
1 = very unlikely — overqualified applicants, no connection, top-tier requirement
6. Strategic value
Does this role add long-term leverage?
5 = opens doors to next-tier roles, key network, target domain
3 = solid stepping stone, not transformational
1 = no strategic upside in the candidate's target field
Single Opportunity Score Output
## Fit Score: [Role] at [Company]
Technical fit: [X/5] — [one sentence reason]
Seniority match: [X/5] — [one sentence reason]
Location: [X/5] — [one sentence reason]
Growth potential: [X/5] — [one sentence reason]
Reachability: [X/5] — [one sentence reason]
Strategic value: [X/5] — [one sentence reason]
Total: [X/30]
Verdict: [Strong Match / Moderate Match / Weak Match / Skip]
Recommendation: [one sentence — what to do next]
Thresholds:
- 25–30: Strong — full tailored application (LaTeX CV, cover letter, ATS sheet)
- 18–24: Moderate — worth applying, standard tailoring
- 12–17: Weak — flag concerns before the candidate invests time
- Below 12: Tell them explicitly why this is not worth their time right now
Multi-Offer Comparison
When the candidate has 3+ options:
## Opportunity Comparison
| | [Company A] | [Company B] | [Company C] |
|---|---|---|---|
| Technical fit | 4 | 3 | 5 |
| Seniority match | 5 | 4 | 3 |
| Location | 5 | 5 | 2 |
| Growth potential | 4 | 5 | 3 |
| Reachability | 3 | 4 | 5 |
| Strategic value | 5 | 3 | 4 |
| Total /30 | 26 | 24 | 22 |
Priority:
1. [Company A] — full tailored materials
2. [Company B] — strong growth, apply second
3. [Company C] — easier to get but lower fit, apply if time allows
Strategy Map
After scoring all opportunities, produce the Strategy Map:
## Candidate Strategy Map
Strongest positioning:
[2-3 sentences on what this candidate can credibly claim]
Target tiers:
Tier 1 (stretch — worth trying):
- [Company/role type] — because [specific reason from profile]
Tier 2 (strong fit):
- [Company/role type] — because [specific reason]
Tier 3 (safety — high probability):
- [Company/role type] — because [specific reason]
Gaps to address before applying:
- [Gap] — how to mitigate: [action]
Recommended first move:
[Single most important action]
