portfolio-jd

name	portfolio-jd
description	Use when someone provides both a portfolio and a specific job description and wants to know how well they match — gap analysis, fit score, and positioning advice for that exact role. Triggers on: "이 공고에 맞아?", "JD랑 비교해줘", "이 포지션 지원해도 돼?", "match my
scenarios	["Compare my portfolio to this job description — where are the gaps?","I want to apply to this JD — how well does my portfolio match and what should I fix?","Score my portfolio against this job posting across tech stack, scale, and role scope","이 공고에 내 포트폴리오가 맞는지 갭 분석해줘","이 JD랑 포트폴리오 비교해서 서류 통과 가능성 알려줘"]
compatibility	{"recommended":["think-tool","mcp-reasoner"],"optional":["sequential-thinking"],"remote_mcp_note":"think-tool은 JD 파싱(Stage 1)과 포트폴리오 파싱(Stage 2)에서 필수 체크포인트로 사용됩니다. mcp-reasoner는 갭 심각도 분류(치명/보완 가능/마이너)와 서류 통과 가능성 판단에 사용됩니다 — 이 두 가지가 이 스킬의 가장 중요한 판단입니다. Claude 설정 → MCP Servers에서 remote SSE 엔드포인트를 추가하세요."}

Portfolio × JD Gap Analyzer

When to Use / When Not to Use

Use when:

• You have both a portfolio and a specific JD and want an honest match assessment
• You need to understand which gaps are critical vs. recoverable before applying
• You want concrete advice on how to position your portfolio for this specific role

Not for:

• Company type matching without a specific JD (use portfolio-company)
• Resume keyword tailoring (use resume-tailorer)
• General portfolio improvement not tied to a specific role (use portfolio-feedback)

Process

1. Parse the JD — real requirements vs. aspirational; must-haves; actual role behind the title; team pain point
2. Parse the portfolio — 3 clearest strengths; 2-3 significant gaps; what it communicates well vs. fails to communicate
3. Structured comparison — map portfolio signals to JD requirements; weight must-haves vs. nice-to-haves
4. Score 5 fit dimensions — tech stack, experience scale, role scope, domain, soft signals
5. Gap analysis — each gap classified: critical / recoverable / minor + how to address
6. Positioning advice — what to emphasize, downplay, or add before applying to this specific role
7. Pass/borderline/screen-out assessment — honest probability judgment with what it hinges on

Standalone Inputs

Provide:

1. Your portfolio (paste, upload, or describe key sections)
2. The full JD text (the more complete, the better)
3. Optionally: company name/stage and target role level

What Claude Does / What You Do

Claude	You
Decodes JD: real requirements vs. aspirational nice-to-haves	Provides the actual portfolio content
Scores fit across 5 dimensions with evidence	Validates gap assessment with network contacts if possible
Classifies each gap: critical / recoverable / minor	Decides whether to apply and what to change
Gives concrete portfolio positioning advice for this specific role	Makes actual application decision
Gives honest pass/borderline/screen-out assessment	Does the relationship building to get referrals

Related Skills

• ../portfolio-rewrite/SKILL.md — act on specific gap areas identified here
• ../resume-tailorer/SKILL.md — keyword-align the resume after positioning advice
• ../portfolio-company/SKILL.md — company type fit analysis if no specific JD yet

---

Stage 1 — Parse the JD (Think Tool — Required)

Call think before reading the portfolio. Build the JD profile independently first — comparing too early biases the analysis toward the portfolio's framing.

Required questions:

• What are the real requirements vs. aspirational? (JDs inflate nice-to-haves into requirements constantly)
• What are the must-haves — what would cause immediate rejection?
• What is the actual role behind the title? ("Senior backend engineer" at a 15-person Series A ≠ the same at a 500-person platform team)
• What signals is this team encoding that aren't stated explicitly? ("Strong communicator" usually means they've been burned by someone who wasn't)
• What pain point is this hire meant to solve?

🧠 JD note: Record decoded profile here. "The role is actually looking for X, not just Y as stated."

---

Stage 2 — Parse the Portfolio (Think Tool — Required)

Call think to build the candidate profile independently of the JD. Do not reference the JD yet.

Required questions:

• What are the candidate's 3 clearest strengths?
• What are the 2–3 most significant gaps or weaknesses?
• What does this portfolio communicate well — and what does it fail to communicate?
• What level and type of role does this portfolio naturally speak to?

🧠 Portfolio note: Record candidate profile here. This is your independent read before the comparison.

---

Stage 3 — Structured Comparison (Sequential Thinking)

Call sequentialthinking to plan how to map portfolio signals to JD requirements systematically:

• How will you handle requirements that the portfolio addresses partially?
• How will you weight must-haves vs. nice-to-haves?
• What is the overall fit narrative — does this portfolio tell the story this JD is looking for?

---

Fit Dimensions

Evaluate across these dimensions:

기술 스택 매칭 Does the candidate's tech experience overlap with what the JD requires? Note exact matches, adjacent experience (transferable), and gaps.

경험 연차 / 스케일 매칭 Does the candidate's scale of experience match what the role implies? A JD saying "large-scale systems experience preferred" is telling you something.

역할 범위 매칭 Does the JD expect an IC who executes, or a senior who leads and influences? Does the portfolio show the right kind of contribution?

도메인 매칭 Is there relevant domain experience (fintech, e-commerce, infra, data platforms, etc.)? Domain mismatch is often recoverable, but it should be acknowledged.

소프트 시그널 매칭 JDs often encode cultural expectations. "Proactive", "ownership", "self-directed" are different from "collaborative", "process-oriented", "strong communicator." Does the portfolio's writing style match the cultural signal?

---

Output Structure

Write in Korean. Use this structure:

---

[역할 해석] What is this role actually looking for, beyond what the JD literally says? 3–5 sentences.

---

[종합 매칭 점수] X / 10 — one sentence explanation of the score.

Break down as:

• 기술 스택: X/10
• 경험 스케일: X/10
• 역할 범위: X/10
• 도메인: X/10
• 소프트 시그널: X/10

Insert 🧠 JD note where any score required a non-obvious judgment.

---

[강한 매칭 포인트] What in the portfolio directly speaks to this JD. Quote or reference specific portfolio content and the specific JD requirement it addresses.

---

[갭 분석] Where the portfolio falls short for this specific role.

For each gap, call mcp-reasoner (beam_search, beamWidth=3) before assigning severity:

• Beam A: 치명적 — missing a must-have; rejection likely regardless of other strengths
• Beam B: 보완 가능 — real gap but addressable in the cover letter, portfolio framing, or interview
• Beam C: 마이너 — nice-to-have miss; unlikely to affect screening

For each gap:

• 갭: [what's missing or underrepresented]
• 심각도: 치명적 / 보완 가능 / 마이너
• 근거: [why this severity — what makes it critical vs. recoverable]
• 대응 방법: [how to address in the portfolio, cover letter, or interview]

---

[포트폴리오 포지셔닝 조정] If the candidate applies, how should they frame their experience for this specific role? What to emphasize, what to downplay, what to add to the portfolio or cover letter before applying.

Concrete: "이 JD는 데이터 파이프라인 경험을 중요하게 보는데, 포트폴리오에서 [프로젝트명]의 ETL 작업을 현재보다 더 앞에 배치하고, 처리한 데이터 볼륨을 명시하세요."

---

[서류 통과 가능성 평가]

Call mcp-reasoner (mcts, numSimulations=50) for this judgment — it is the highest-stakes single output of this skill and the one most likely to have competing evidence.

Honest assessment: likely pass / borderline / likely screen out — and what that hinges on.

State the one factor that, if changed, would most shift this assessment in either direction.

---

[지원 여부 조언] Should they apply? If yes, with what changes? If borderline, what's the one thing that would tip it?

---

Rules

• Decode the JD honestly — don't just match keywords. A JD that says "Kubernetes experience preferred" at a 10-person startup is very different from the same phrase at a platform team of 200.
• Distinguish must-haves from nice-to-haves. Missing a must-have is different from missing a nice-to-have.
• Be specific: reference actual text from both the JD and the portfolio in your analysis.
• Use think whenever a match or gap is ambiguous — adjacent experience, partial domain overlap, or transferable skills all need careful judgment.
• Don't sugarcoat poor fits. "You should still apply" when the match is weak is not helpful advice.