recruiter-fit-matcher

name

recruiter-fit-matcher

description

Compare candidate resumes/profiles against job descriptions, hiring managers, reporting lines, and stakeholder audiences for recruiter-style fit analysis. Use when asked to match a candidate to a role, analyze resume/JD alignment, organize fit by evidence or data type, prepare recruiter screening notes, identify gaps, tailor positioning, or explain whether a candidate aligns with a hiring manager and the business leaders served.

Recruiter Fit Matcher

Purpose

Produce a recruiter-grade match analysis that distinguishes role facts, candidate evidence, stakeholder needs, inferred fit, gaps, and positioning moves. Optimize for usefulness to a recruiter who needs to decide whether and how to advance a candidate.

Source Order

1. Read the candidate resume, LinkedIn/profile notes, portfolio, or supplied candidate text.
2. Read the JD from the supplied text, file, or browser page. If the JD is a live/current posting and browsing is available or requested, verify it from the source.
3. Gather context about the reporting manager and stakeholder audience only from user-supplied context or current public sources. Label public-source facts separately from inference.
4. If a key source is missing, produce the best partial analysis and clearly mark the missing input. Do not invent candidate evidence.

Workflow

1. Extract facts.

   • Candidate: roles, companies, systems shipped, data handled, users served, technical stack, business outcomes, seniority signals.
   • JD: mission, responsibilities, required skills, preferred skills, systems-of-record, internal users, domain constraints, compensation/level signals.
   • Reporting manager: title, function, apparent values, likely evaluation lens. Use this only when sourced or reasonably inferred from role/function.
   • Served stakeholders: identify buyer/user groups such as C-suite, VPs, P&L owners, sales, marketing, finance, ops, engineering, customers, regulators.

2. Normalize into data types.

   • Use references/data-type-taxonomy.md when the user asks to organize by data type or when the role spans multiple business/technical surfaces.
   • Pick only relevant data types; do not force every category.

3. Build an evidence matrix.

   • Use references/output-templates.md for the table shape.
   • Include: role/stakeholder need, candidate evidence, strength, gaps, and suggested resume/interview positioning.
   • Rate fit qualitatively: Very strong, Strong, Medium, Weak, or Unknown.

4. Identify the throughline.

   • Summarize the candidate's strongest narrative in one sentence.
   • State the role-specific version of that narrative in one sentence.
   • Distinguish "true fit" from "needs reframing".

5. Produce recruiter actions.

   • Recommend whether to advance, calibrate, or pass.
   • List the strongest proof points Eugene should lead with.
   • List the top risks or missing proof.
   • Give candidate-facing positioning changes for resume, cover note, recruiter pitch, and interview prep when useful.

Evidence Rules

• Treat the JD as demand-side evidence, not truth about the company beyond the posting.
• Treat the resume as supply-side evidence. Do not credit unstated skills just because adjacent experience suggests them.
• When inferring needs from a reporting manager or stakeholder group, use phrases like "likely values" or "likely cares about".
• Prefer concrete artifacts over adjectives: shipped systems, integrations, scale, data records, uptime, evals, compliance, adoption, revenue, costs, users, workflows.
• Surface mismatches plainly. A good analysis is allowed to say "high fit technically, medium fit commercially."

Output Shapes

For quick requests, return:

1. Overall fit verdict.
2. Fit table by data type or competency.
3. Top 3 proof points.
4. Top 3 gaps.
5. Positioning recommendation.

For detailed requests, read references/output-templates.md and use the long-form recruiter brief.

Recruiter Voice

Write for Eugene as a practical recruiter. Be direct, evidence-led, and concise. Avoid generic praise. The useful unit is not "candidate is great"; it is "candidate has evidence for X need because Y, but must address Z gap."