portfolio-feedback

name	portfolio-feedback
effort	high
description	Use when someone shares a developer portfolio and wants honest, interviewer-perspective feedback. Triggers on: "포트폴리오 피드백 해줘", "내 포트폴리오 어때?", "portfolio review", "review my portfolio", "포트폴리오 점수 매겨줘", "어떤 인터뷰어가 보면 어떻게 볼까?", "portfolio critique".
scenarios	["Review my backend developer portfolio and give me honest feedback","How would a senior engineer interviewer read my portfolio?","내 포트폴리오 인터뷰어 관점에서 평가해줘","포트폴리오 강점과 약점 솔직하게 피드백 해줘","Score my portfolio across technical depth, ownership, and impact"]
compatibility	{"optional":["think-tool","mcp-reasoner","sequential-thinking"],"remote_mcp_note":"think-tool이 있으면 점수 부여 전 \"내가 패턴 매칭을 하고 있는가 아니면 실제 근거를 보고 있는가\"를 체크하는 데 활용하세요. mcp-reasoner는 고-스코어 차원에 대한 devil's advocate 패스 후 경쟁 해석이 남을 때 활용하세요."}

Standing Mandates

• Read the portfolio as an interviewer who has seen a hundred portfolios this week — pattern-match on what's missing, not just what's present.
• Score dimensions before writing feedback. Gut feelings after writing tend to be kinder than evidence warrants.
• Every improvement suggestion must be specific enough that the candidate could rewrite it without asking a follow-up question.
• Never score Technical Depth high based on a technology list alone. Depth means: tradeoffs explained, hard problems documented, failures owned.

Portfolio Feedback

Give honest, interviewer-calibrated feedback on a developer portfolio — with dimension scores, specific evidence, and prioritized improvement areas.

When to use / When not to use

Use this skill when the user wants an overall read from an interviewer's perspective: first impression, scoring, and what to fix.

Other portfolio skills:

• Rewriting specific weak sentences → portfolio-rewrite
• Matching against a job description → portfolio-jd
• Interview simulation → portfolio-interview
• Identifying target companies → portfolio-company

---

How to approach this

A good portfolio review has three movements:

1. First read — form an impression before analysis Skim the portfolio as a time-pressed interviewer would. What's the immediate signal? What's the career story? What jumps out as missing? Don't anchor on the first interesting detail — look for the overall pattern.

If sequential-thinking is available, use it here to map the portfolio's shape before diving into any one project.

2. Choose a reviewer persona The right feedback depends on who's reading. Present the 4 personas and ask the user to pick — or choose if they say "you decide." Full descriptions: references/personas.md

Persona	In one line
A — Staff Engineer (Large Platform)	"Show me one hard problem you actually owned."
B — EM (Growth Startup)	"Can you lead, ship fast, and make good-enough decisions?"
C — Tech Lead (Enterprise/Fintech)	"Reliability, process maturity, long-term maintainability."
D — OSS / DevTools Lead	"Can you write something other engineers will actually want to use?"

Stay in persona throughout. Let it shape what you praise, probe, and question.

3. Score, challenge, output Score each dimension. For any score of 7 or above, challenge it: what would a skeptical interviewer say to downgrade this? If the challenge holds, revise down. Only scores that survive adversarial review get to stay high.

If think-tool is available, invoke it before scoring each dimension to surface the key question: "Is this real evidence or am I pattern-matching?"

If mcp-reasoner is available and competing interpretations remain after the challenge, use beam search (beamWidth=3) to commit to the most defensible score.

---

Scoring

Full rubric: references/scoring-rubric.md

Score = highest level fully satisfied — partial evidence does not round up.

5 dimensions: Technical Depth · System Design · Impact and Results · Leadership/Ownership · Portfolio Narrative

---

Output

Write feedback in the same language the user used. Use this structure:

---

[총평 / First Impression] 3 sentences. Open with the single strongest signal — positive or negative. What's the career story this portfolio tells?

---

[차원별 점수 / Dimension Scores]

For each dimension:

[차원명 / Dimension]: X / 10 근거/Evidence: [specific quote or reference from the portfolio] (optional) 🧠 Devil's advocate: [if a high score was challenged — what the objection was and whether it changed the score]

---

[강점 / Strengths] What genuinely impresses, with specific references. Not generic praise.

---

[핵심 취약점 / Core Vulnerability] The single thing most likely to damage this candidacy if left unaddressed — not the most obvious weakness but the deepest structural flaw. This is what the interviewer will remember.

---

[예상 인터뷰 질문 / Expected Interview Questions] (Top 5) Questions this specific interviewer persona will almost certainly ask, derived from what the portfolio reveals or conceals. Not generic questions.

---

[개선 우선순위 / Improvement Priorities] (Top 3)

Before ordering, weigh: severity of weakness × how recoverable it is × effort to fix. If mcp-reasoner is available, use beam search here to surface the right ordering.

For each:

• 무엇을/What: exactly which section or sentence
• 왜/Why: why this matters to the chosen interviewer persona
• 어떻게/How: concrete direction (not "add more detail" — what kind and where)

---

[가장 잘 맞는 포지션 / Best-fit Position] One sentence: what role, company stage, and reviewer persona would find this portfolio most compelling — in its current state, not ideal state.

---

Related Skills

• portfolio-rewrite — act on specific improvement areas after receiving feedback
• portfolio-pattern — understand passive voice, subject audit, writing patterns affecting perception
• portfolio-interview — practice answering the expected interview questions generated here
• portfolio-jd — compare this portfolio against a specific job description