Use when evaluating technical claims in high-depth content section units (예: 문제 해결 / 상세 프로젝트 / 경력 기술서). Defines the 5-axis framework (A1 Technical Credibility, A2 Causal Honesty, A3 Outcome Presence & Clarity, A4 Ownership & Scope, A5 Scanability) plus 2 critical authenticity rules (R-Phys, R-Cross) used by tech-claim-examiner agent. Verb-scope inflation (previously a separate rule) is now caught by A4 integrity_suspected sub-flag (see a4-ownership-scope.md).
Use when evaluating technical claims in high-depth content section units (예: 문제 해결 / 상세 프로젝트 / 경력 기술서). Defines the 5-axis framework (A1 Technical Credibility, A2 Causal Honesty, A3 Outcome Presence & Clarity, A4 Ownership & Scope, A5 Scanability) plus 2 critical authenticity rules (R-Phys, R-Cross) used by tech-claim-examiner agent. Verb-scope inflation (previously a separate rule) is now caught by A4 integrity_suspected sub-flag (see a4-ownership-scope.md).
Overview
This document is the authoritative rubric definition used by the tech-claim-examiner agent to evaluate technical claims in high-depth content section units (예: 문제 해결 / 상세 프로젝트 / 경력 기술서). It does NOT perform evaluation itself — it defines the evaluation contract that the examiner follows.
The rubric consists of:
Five evaluation axes (A1–A5): The core evaluation framework. Each axis produces one of three verdicts (PASS / FAIL / P1). All five axes use an absolute standard. A5 is additionally structure-agnostic.
Two critical authenticity rules (R-Phys, R-Cross): Integrity gates evaluated separately from the axes. Both can trigger automatic REQUEST_CHANGES regardless of A1–A4 verdicts and structural_verdict. Verb-scope inflation (previously a separate rule, retired in v4) is now caught by A4 integrity_suspected sub-flag (see a4-ownership-scope.md).
Evaluation structure:
Layer
Components
Verdict contribution
Depth
A1, A2
Absolute
Significance
A3, A4
Absolute
Presentation
A5
Absolute (structure-agnostic)
Integrity
R-Phys, R-Cross
Auto-fail triggers (verb-scope inflation rule retired in v4 — see A4 integrity_suspected)
Downstream consumers: resume-forge and review-resume skills consume the examiner's output schema (see output-schema.md).
Why 5 Axes (Rationale)
The previous 11-axis system (v1) was retired by agent-council unanimous vote. The core problems with v1:
Over-engineered: Sub-axes (E3a, E3b, sub-dimensions with weighted formulas) added evaluation overhead without improving signal quality. Evaluators spent more time computing scores than assessing claims.
Backend-biased: The v1 depth criteria implicitly favored distributed systems and infrastructure work. Frontend, data, and product-engineering bullets systematically underscored due to structural mismatch.
Structurally rigid: Phase A/B/C routing imposed a fixed evaluation order that created decision-tree overhead. Simple bullets required the same ceremonial path as complex ones.
Catch-22 default-FAIL: The "FAIL unless proven" stance combined with the prohibition on inference created a rubric where legitimately strong bullets failed due to formatting choices rather than substance gaps.
The 5-axis redesign compresses the evaluation into five clear questions:
Question
Axis
Does this bullet reveal technical judgment?
A1
Is the cause-and-effect logic and arithmetic internally consistent?
A2
Is there a stated outcome that matters (tech or business)?
A3
Is the ownership claim coherent with the described scope?
A4
Can a recruiter extract the key message within 6–30 seconds of scanning?
A5
These five questions cover the full evaluation surface without sub-weighting formulas or cascading phase routing.
Anti-pattern → Axis Traceability Matrix
Common resume bullet anti-patterns, the axis that catches them, and the verdict tier produced.
Anti-pattern
Axis
Verdict
Name-only mention (도구 이름만 나열, 메커니즘 없음)
A1
FAIL or P1
Vanity outcome (팀 만족도 향상 등 정량 metric 없는 결과)
A3
FAIL
Verb inflation (주도/총괄 + scope marker 없음)
A4
FAIL or A4 integrity_suspected
Missing baseline (응답 시간 80% 단축 with no before/after window)
A2 (Rule 1)
P1 (Soft)
Fuzzy noun outcome (성능 개선 / 처리량 향상 정량화 없음)
A3 (or A2 Rule 6)
P1
Offline-as-production (load-test 수치를 production metric으로 표기)
A2 (Rule 3)
FAIL (Hard)
Arithmetic error (claimed delta math 일치 안 함)
A2 (Rule 1)
FAIL (Hard)
Five Axes — Quick Reference
Axis
Standard
One-line
Reference file
A1 Technical Credibility
Absolute
기술적 판단이 드러나는가 (5/5 signals strict)
a1-technical-credibility.md
A2 Causal Honesty
Absolute
원인→결과 logic + arithmetic 일관성
a2-causal-honesty.md
A3 Outcome Presence & Clarity
Absolute
tech OR business 결과 명시 (so what?)
a3-outcome-presence-clarity.md
A4 Ownership & Scope
Absolute
동사-scope coherence (led/built/contributed)
a4-ownership-scope.md
A5 Scanability
Absolute (structure-agnostic)
6-30s scan에 핵심 파악 가능
a5-scanability.md
Axis Verdicts
Each axis (A1–A5) produces one of three verdicts:
Verdict
Meaning
PASS
The claim satisfies the axis criterion with evidence present in the bullet text
FAIL
The claim clearly violates the axis criterion; revision required
P1
The claim partially satisfies the criterion; improvement recommended but not blocking
All five axes (A1–A5) use an Absolute standard: the passing bar does not move with experience level. candidate_context.years is referenced only by A4 for scope evaluation, not by A1.
A5 is structure-agnostic: it does not require a specific format (e.g., "action verb + metric + outcome"). It asks only whether the core message is extractable by a scanning reader within 6–30 seconds, regardless of how the bullet is structured.
A1 Evaluation Criteria
Question: Does this bullet reveal technical judgment? (이 bullet에 기술적 판단이 드러나는가?)
PASS — Bullet body explicitly shows all 5 of the following signals:
Technology selection — a specific system/algorithm/pattern deliberately chosen
Mechanism — how the chosen technology works (partitioning key, memoization strategy, eviction policy, cutover path, etc.)
Trade-off / risk — cost/risk accepted, or rejection-reason for a rejected alternative
Rationale — context-based "why X over Y"
FAIL:
Tool/library name drop only (no rationale)
Outcome metrics only, no selection or mechanism grounding
Generic verbs ("도입", "구축", "개선", "활용") with no what/how/why
Feature noun-phrases ("seamless multi-step flow") masquerading as mechanism
P1 (canonical — a1-technical-credibility.md defers to this): Exactly 4 of 5 signals present (one signal absent), OR all 5 of 5 signals present but at least one signal is at name-level only (no mechanism or rationale behind it). Either condition fails the 5/5 strict PASS bar. Not vacuous enough to FAIL — examiner returns improvement hint targeting the shallowest signal.
Section-wide signal mapping: real-world에서 signal이 sub-bullets로 분산 가능 — section 전체에서 매핑 허용. 단일 bullet line에 모든 signal이 집중되지 않아도 section 전체에서 5 signals 모두 확인되면 PASS 판정 가능 — 단일 bullet line에 집중되지 않아도 허용.
Years are not referenced for A1. Ownership signals belong to A4, not A1.
Authenticity as Critical Rules
Authenticity is NOT a scored axis. It is a set of integrity gates evaluated as critical rules by the examiner. Rules are checked after all five axes are scored, and their triggered status feeds directly into final_verdict.
R-Phys — Physical Impossibility
Trigger condition: A numeric claim is physically or mathematically impossible given the described context.
Examples of R-Phys violations:
"Reduced latency by 50,000%" (percentage improvement cannot exceed 100% of the baseline for latency reduction)
"Increased throughput from 10 RPS to 10,000,000 RPS with a config change" (plausible magnitude would require hardware, not config)
Effect: Automatic REQUEST_CHANGES regardless of A1–A4 verdicts and structural_verdict. The examiner must name the specific number and explain why it is physically incoherent.
R-Cross — Cross-Entry Contradiction
Trigger condition: The claim directly contradicts another entry on the same resume, and both cannot be simultaneously true.
Example: Entry A claims "Designed and implemented the entire payment microservice from scratch." Entry B claims "Contributed to payment microservice API design alongside a team of 8 engineers." These contradict each other on ownership scope.
Applicability: R-Cross는 항상 emit된다. cross-entry context가 제공되지 않은 경우 triggered: false로 기록하고, reasoning에 "cross-entry context not provided"와 같이 absence를 명시한다.
Effect: Automatic REQUEST_CHANGES regardless of A1–A4 verdicts and structural_verdict. The examiner must cite both entries and identify the specific contradiction.
Verb-Scope Inflation — Retired in v4
The verb-scope inflation check (previously a standalone critical rule) is retired as a separate rule in v4. Detection is now handled by the A4 integrity_suspected sub-flag (see a4-ownership-scope.md). Detailed worked examples for R-Phys and R-Cross are in agents/tech-claim-examiner.md.
Evaluation Protocol
The examiner evaluates axes sequentially: A1 → A2 → A3 → A4 → A5. After all five axes, critical rules are checked.
Reasoning-Before-Verdict
For each axis, the examiner MUST:
Write technical reasoning first — what evidence is present, what is absent, what questions the claim raises
Provide an evidence_quote — a direct excerpt from the bullet text supporting the verdict
Assign the verdict last — PASS / FAIL / P1 derived from the reasoning, not assumed upfront
If the reasoning does not support the verdict, the verdict is wrong. Verdict-first reasoning is prohibited.
Critical Rule Invariant
After A1–A4 are scored and A5 emits structural_verdict, the following invariant is applied before generating final_verdict:
IF r_phys.triggered == true OR r_cross.triggered == true
THEN final_verdict = REQUEST_CHANGES
(regardless of A1–A4 verdicts and structural_verdict)
Final Verdict Derivation (when invariant does not apply)
Condition
final_verdict
No A1–A4 axis is FAIL AND count(P1 across A1-A4) < 3 AND structural_verdict ∈ {PASS, P1}
APPROVE
Any of A1–A4 is FAIL
REQUEST_CHANGES
count(P1 across A1-A4) ≥ 3
REQUEST_CHANGES
structural_verdict == FAIL
REQUEST_CHANGES
Note: A5 verdict는 structural_verdict로 노출된다. structural_verdict == FAIL AND A1-A4 모두 PASS/P1 AND count(P1 across A1-A4) < 3인 경우 final_verdict = REQUEST_CHANGES를 트리거하되, consumer routing은 source-extraction이 아닌 readability-fix lane으로 처리된다. See output-schema.md §A5 Co-failure Disambiguation and a5-scanability.md.
P1 verdicts do not block APPROVE but are surfaced in interview_hints as improvement recommendations.
Output schema details (field names, types, required/optional) are in output-schema.md.
Output Format
The examiner's full output schema is defined in output-schema.md. Key fields:
INTERNAL fields (reasoning trace, not shown to candidates):
Field
Description
verdicts.a1_* through verdicts.a5_*
Per-axis reasoning, evidence_quote, verdict
verdicts.a4_ownership_scope.integrity_suspected
A4 verb-scope structural overclaim flag (bool)
critical_rule_flags.r_phys
triggered (bool), reasoning (string)
critical_rule_flags.r_cross
triggered (bool), reasoning (string)
PUBLIC fields (returned to downstream caller):
Canonical definition: output-schema.md §Output Schema. 이 테이블은 downstream consumer를 위한 요약이며 schema 변경 시 반드시 동기 수정.
Field
Description
schema_version
string — output schema contract version (e.g., v4.1)
All v1 axis tokens (E1–E6, R1–R5, E3b, Constraint Cascade, CASCADING, LISTED, FLAT, Narrative Necessity, Layer 2, Phase A/B/C) are retired. They must not appear in examiner output or downstream skill prompts outside of this migration reference.
Completion Checklist
The examiner verifies all of the following before delivering output:
