| name | resume-tailor |
| description | Tailors a résumé to a specific job description — parses the JD for priorities, reorders and rewrites bullets to match, quantifies achievements, and passes ATS filters. Use when a user is applying to a specific role and wants their résumé to match the JD, or when their bullets are weak ("responsible for...") and need tightening. |
Résumé Tailor
A résumé that matches the job description beats a generic one. Not by keyword-stuffing; by showing the exact evidence the hiring team is looking for.
When to use
- User is applying for a specific role and wants their résumé tuned to that JD.
- Résumé reads generic ("responsible for") and needs punch.
- User has 5+ years of experience and a résumé overflowing onto page 3 — needs cutting.
- ATS-compatibility is a concern (large companies; public sector; many online portals).
Before you start
Gather:
- The job description — full text, not a summary. Priorities are buried in specific wording.
- The current résumé — ideally in editable form (Markdown, Google Doc, Word). PDF only means you'll retype.
- The user's recent work + achievements that aren't on the résumé yet — often there's a strong story hidden in Slack DMs and project docs.
- Which companies they'd be most excited about — the one where they'll push hardest and get the most value from tailoring.
Tailoring workflow
- Parse the JD. Separate must-haves, nice-to-haves, culture signals. See jd-parsing.md.
- Audit the current résumé against the must-haves. What's already there? What's missing? What's there but buried?
- Reorder. Most relevant experience first — within the same role, reorder bullets. Across roles, keep reverse-chronological but consider a summary / highlights section at the top.
- Rewrite weak bullets. Apply STAR (Situation / Task / Action / Result). See bullet-rewrites.md.
- Quantify everything possible. "Improved performance" < "Cut p95 latency 40% (800ms → 480ms)" < "Cut p95 latency 40%, unblocking SLA target for 3M monthly users."
- Trim. One page if <10 years experience, two pages max otherwise. Recent and relevant stays; old and tangential goes.
- ATS pass. Remove fancy formatting, tables, text-in-images, two-column layouts. Single column, clean headers, normal fonts. See ats-formatting.md.
- Generate a short cover letter / email that leads with the specific reason this role is a match — not a restatement of the résumé.
Non-negotiable rules
- Never fabricate. Achievements, titles, metrics, dates — all real. Fabricated résumés get discovered in reference checks, probation reviews, or worse.
- Lead every bullet with a verb. "Led a team of 5..." not "Was responsible for leading..."
- Quantify every bullet you can. Numbers, percentages, counts, dollars. "Shipped feature" is weaker than "Shipped feature used by 2,400 users in week 1".
- Match the JD's vocabulary — where truthful. If the JD says "partner with stakeholders", use "partnered with stakeholders", not "worked closely with folks".
- Cut filler sections. "Objective" / "References available on request" / generic skills lists — delete. Wasted space.
- One page if possible. Hiring teams spend 30 seconds on first pass. Two pages means they might not reach page 2.
- Never use first person. "Shipped X" not "I shipped X". Not "Yaroslav shipped X" either — implied first person, no pronoun.
- Never use a photo (in the US/UK/Canada). In some European countries and APAC it's expected — match local norm.
- Dates on the right, roles on the left — makes scanning easy for recruiters.
Output
- The tailored résumé — full document, ready to copy into the user's source.
- A change log — what you rewrote, what you cut, what you reordered, and why. So the user can push back on your edits.
- A short cover email/letter — optional but almost always worth including.
References
- Parsing a JD — how to extract must-haves, nice-to-haves, and culture signals; common JD patterns.
- Bullet rewrites — STAR pattern, strong verb lists, quantification tactics, common bullet failures.
- ATS formatting — the layout choices that survive parsing, the ones that don't; Word vs PDF; file-naming.
