cv-tailor

CV Tailor

Three pillars of resume optimization: Analyze keyword alignment against the target JD, rewrite experience bullets using the STAR method with quantified results, and run an ATS compatibility check — producing a highly targeted, high-pass-rate optimized resume.

Quick Start

The user provides their resume (content or file) and the target JD. The agent then automatically completes the optimization following the workflow below:

User: Help me optimize my resume — I'm applying for this role [attaches JD + resume]
Agent: [Follows the SOP workflow and outputs optimization recommendations plus a rewritten resume]

SOP Workflow

Phase 1: Input Collection & Initial Analysis

Goal: Gather the user's resume and target JD; establish an optimization baseline.

Steps:

1. Collect materials:

   • Obtain the user's resume content (pasted text or file path)
   • Obtain the target JD (pasted text or role description)
   • If no JD is provided, ask about the target role direction (industry + position + level)

2. Resume baseline parsing:

   • Identify resume sections (education, work experience, projects, skills, etc.)
   • Count resume length, number of experience entries, and time span
   • Note the current resume format type (reverse-chronological / functional / hybrid)

3. JD core element extraction:

   • Job title and level
   • Core responsibilities (Top 5)
   • Hard requirements (must-haves)
   • Nice-to-haves
   • Key skill terms and industry jargon

Output: Resume status summary + JD element checklist

---

Phase 2: JD Keyword Match Analysis

Goal: Systematically compare keyword coverage between the resume and JD to identify match gaps.

Steps:

1. Categorized keyword extraction: Extract three categories of keywords from the JD:

   Category	Description	Examples
   Hard skill keywords	Tech stack, tools, methodologies	Python, SQL, A/B testing, Scrum
   Soft skill keywords	Competency requirements	Cross-team collaboration, data-driven, project management
   Industry/domain keywords	Domain-specific terminology	DAU, conversion rate, user growth, SaaS

2. Match analysis: Search each keyword in the resume and generate a match matrix:

   | Keyword | JD Priority | In Resume? | Location | Recommendation |
   |---------|-------------|------------|----------|----------------|
   | Python  | Required    | ✅ Yes     | Skills + Project 1 | Keep; add specific use-case context |
   | SQL     | Required    | ❌ No      | -        | Add; weave into project experience |
   

3. Coverage scoring:

   • Required keyword coverage = matched required keywords / total required keywords × 100%
   • Nice-to-have coverage = matched nice-to-have keywords / total nice-to-have keywords × 100%
   • Benchmark: Required keyword coverage ≥ 80% is passing, ≥ 90% is excellent

4. Gap-fill recommendations:

   • For each unmatched required keyword, recommend which section and entry to add it to
   • Provide specific integration approaches (add to skills section / embed in experience bullet / highlight in project outcomes)

Output: Keyword match matrix + coverage scores + gap-fill plan

---

Phase 3: STAR Quantified Rewriting

Goal: Rewrite each experience entry using the STAR method, ensuring quantified data support.

STAR Method Definition:

Element	Meaning	Checkpoint
S - Situation	Context & background	When, what scenario, what scale
T - Task	Objective & responsibility	What was your role, what problem to solve
A - Action	Specific actions taken	What you did, what methods/tools you used
R - Result	Quantified outcomes	Data changes, efficiency gains, cost savings

Steps:

1. Diagnose existing entries: Evaluate STAR completeness for each experience bullet:

   Original: "Responsible for user growth initiatives"
   
   Diagnosis:
   - S (Situation): ❌ Missing — no product or stage context
   - T (Task): ⚠️ Vague — "initiatives" is too generic
   - A (Action): ❌ Missing — no specific actions described
   - R (Result): ❌ Missing — no data whatsoever
   Score: 1/4 (severely lacking)
   

2. Quantified rewriting: After gathering additional details from the user, rewrite using the STAR structure:

   Rewritten: "During a user growth plateau for [Product Name] (DAU 500K+),
   led the design of a new-user activation funnel analysis framework (S+T),
   optimized 3 critical registration flow touchpoints + designed a 7-day retention incentive strategy (A),
   increasing new-user D1 retention from 32% to 45% and monthly active users by 18% within 3 months (R)"
   

3. Quantification guidance: If the user is unsure about specific numbers, provide prompting questions:

   Dimension	Guiding Questions
   Scale metrics	How many people did you manage / product DAU / project budget
   Efficiency gains	How long did it take before vs. after optimization
   Growth metrics	Revenue / users / conversion rate change
   Cost savings	Money / headcount / time saved
   Impact scope	Users served / clients covered / teams affected

   Data integrity principles:

   • All data must be based on the user's real experience — fabrication is strictly prohibited
   • If the user cannot provide exact figures, use reasonable ranges (e.g., "improved by approximately 20%–30%")
   • Encourage relative values over absolutes (e.g., "2× efficiency improvement" is safer than "saved 3.7 hours per day")

4. Rewrite quality checklist: Each rewritten entry must satisfy:

   • Contains at least 1 quantified data point
   • Covers at least 3 of the 4 STAR elements
   • Begins with an action verb (led, built, optimized, drove, designed…)
   • No longer than 3 lines (ATS readability)
   • Incorporates missing keywords identified in Phase 2

Output: Before/after comparison table for each entry + STAR score changes

---

Phase 4: ATS Compatibility Check

Goal: Ensure the resume can pass ATS (Applicant Tracking System) automated screening.

ATS Basics: ATS is the software companies use to automatically screen resumes. It parses resume text, matches keywords, and assigns scores to determine whether a resume reaches human review. Common systems include Workday, Greenhouse, Lever, Taleo, and iCIMS.

Steps:

1. Format compatibility check:

   Check Item	Passing Standard	Common Issues
   File format	PDF or DOCX (PDF preferred)	Image-based resumes cannot be parsed
   Layout	Single-column, standard heading hierarchy	Multi-column layouts may parse incorrectly
   Fonts	Standard fonts (Arial, Calibri, Times New Roman, Helvetica)	Decorative fonts may render incorrectly
   Tables	Avoid complex table-based layouts	Text inside tables may be skipped
   Headers/footers	Keep critical info out of headers/footers	Some ATS skip header/footer regions
   Images/icons	Don't use images to convey key information	ATS cannot read text in images
   Special characters	Avoid special Unicode bullet characters	Use standard bullets (•) or hyphens (-)

2. Content structure check:

   Check Item	Passing Standard
   Section titles	Use standard headings ("Work Experience", "Education", "Projects", "Skills")
   Date format	Consistent format (e.g., "Jan 2023 – Jun 2024" or "2023/01 – 2024/06")
   Company/school names	Use full names, not abbreviations (e.g., "Amazon Web Services" not "AWS")
   Contact information	Include name, phone, email — placed prominently at the top
   File naming	Recommended format: "FirstName_LastName_TargetRole_Resume" (e.g., "John_Smith_Product_Manager_Resume.pdf")

3. Keyword density check:

   • Core keywords should appear at least 2–3 times (distributed across different sections)
   • Avoid keyword stuffing (repeating the same keyword within one paragraph)
   • Use the exact phrasing from the JD (if the JD says "data analysis," don't write "data mining")

4. ATS score output:

   ATS Compatibility Scorecard
   ===========================
   Format Compatibility:     ██████████ 90/100
   Section Standards:        ████████░░ 80/100
   Keyword Match Rate:       ███████░░░ 70/100 (see Phase 2)
   Content Structure:        █████████░ 85/100
   ──────────────────────────
   Overall Score:            81/100 (Good)
   
   ⚠️ Major deductions:
   1. Uses a two-column layout (−10 pts)
   2. Missing a standalone "Skills" section (−5 pts)
   3. "Data analysis" keyword appears only once (−5 pts)
   

Output: ATS compatibility scorecard + item-by-item results + fix recommendations

---

Phase 5: Final Optimized Output

Goal: Consolidate findings from all four phases into a final optimization deliverable.

Steps:

1. Optimization summary:

   Resume Optimization Summary
   ===========================
   JD Keyword Coverage:      62% → 92% (+30%)
   STAR Completeness:        Avg 1.5/4 → 3.5/4
   ATS Compatibility Score:  55/100 → 88/100
   Entries Rewritten:        6/8
   Keywords Added:           7
   

2. Output the fully rewritten resume:

   • Present the optimized resume text section by section
   • Bold all changed portions for easy comparison
   • Keep all factual information unchanged (schools, companies, dates, etc.)

3. Additional recommendations (if applicable):

   • Resume length guidance (new grads: 1 page; 3–5 years experience: 1–2 pages; 10+ years: up to 2 pages)
   • Section ordering suggestions (adjust education vs. experience placement based on career stage)
   • Channel-specific tweaks (different emphasis for recruiter / company portal / referral submissions)

Output: Optimization summary + fully rewritten resume + additional recommendations

---

Workflow Control Rules

Interaction Modes

User Input	Mode	Behavior
Resume only, no JD	Guided mode	Ask about the target role and JD first, then begin analysis
Resume + JD	Standard mode	Execute Phases 1–5 in full
Requests a specific phase only	Single-phase mode	Execute only the requested Phase (e.g., ATS check only)
Says "just give it a quick look"	Diagnostic mode	Output three scores + Top 3 improvement suggestions — no full rewrite

Quality Checklist

Before delivering the final output, verify each item:

• Keyword match matrix is complete (covers all required JD items)
• Every rewritten entry includes at least 1 quantified data point
• STAR rewrites preserve the authenticity of the user's real experience
• No data or experience has been fabricated
• ATS check covers all format items
• Rewritten resume length is appropriate
• Keywords are woven in naturally — not force-fitted
• Contact details and sensitive information have not been leaked or altered

Iterative Refinement

If the user provides feedback on the optimization:

1. Identify which Phase the feedback relates to
2. Re-execute from that Phase
3. Cascade updates to all downstream content
4. Maintain overall consistency (keywords, STAR rewrites, and ATS checks update in lockstep)

Core Principles

1. Authenticity first: All optimizations must be based on the user's real experience — fabricating data or experience is strictly prohibited
2. Targeted optimization: Every change should serve JD alignment — no aimless embellishment
3. Actionable advice: Recommendations must be directly usable — don't say "add metrics" without guiding the user on how
4. Privacy protection: Remind users to redact sensitive information (phone numbers, home addresses, etc.) when sharing their resume