**Compile with:****lualatex** on MiKTeX/TeX Live. pdflatex often fails on modern MiKTeX installs with `fontawesome5` font-expansion errors; lualatex handles the same sources cleanly.
**Master reference:**`cv/main_example.tex` (comprehensive CV with all competencies, experience, and achievements - use as source when building targeted CVs)
Expected output: `Output written on main_<company>_<role>.pdf (2 pages, ...)`. Any page count other than 2 is a failure that must be fixed before presenting to the user.
The three `\renewcommand*` lines in the preamble are required on lualatex+MiKTeX. Without them the firstname, lastname, and section headings render in black even though `\moderncvcolor{blue}` is set, which looks inconsistent with the rest of the blue accent scheme (links, bullet markers, contact icons). The override forces all three to use `color1` (moderncv's accent colour, which becomes blue under `\moderncvcolor{blue}`). Both names render bold; if you prefer the firstname in regular weight, change the firstnamestyle override from `\bfseries` to `\mdseries`. Don't drop the override - on most modern installs the defaults render visibly wrong.
### Spacing inside itemize lists (important)
**Do not place `\vspace{...}` between `\item` entries in an `itemize` list.** Even though the source looks symmetric, this pattern occasionally produces a noticeably oversized gap before a single item: the inter-item `\vspace` creates a paragraph break that interacts unpredictably with the list's internal `\itemsep`, so LaTeX renders one of the gaps wider than the rest. Remove the inter-item `\vspace` and let `itemize` use its native uniform spacing.
```latex
% WRONG - intermittently produces an oversized gap before one bullet
\begin{itemize}
\item\textbf{Foo}: ...
\vspace{1pt}
\item\textbf{Bar}: ...
\vspace{1pt}
\item\textbf{Baz}: ...
\end{itemize}
% RIGHT - uniform spacing using the list's native itemsep
\begin{itemize}
\item\textbf{Foo}: ...
\item\textbf{Bar}: ...
\item\textbf{Baz}: ...
\end{itemize}
```
Two related patterns are fine and should be kept:
-`\vspace{1pt}` immediately after `\section{...}` (between section heading and first item) - this is between the heading and the list, not between list items.
-`\vspace{3pt}` between top-level `\cventry` blocks in Professional Experience or Education - this gives breathing room between roles and renders consistently.
### Profile Statement / Elevator Pitch (Best Practice)
This is the most important section to customize. It appears right after `\makecvtitle`.
Write 5-7 lines that function as an "elevator pitch": a concise, compelling introduction explaining why you're qualified for *this specific role*. Focus on what the employer gains from hiring you.
**Create 2-3 profile statement templates for your main role types:**
<!-- SETUP: These are populated based on your background -->
Statements labeled *[Used for: <company>_<role>]* were extracted from archived application drafts by `/setup` Path A. They are **phrasing references, never fact sources**: when drafting from one, every factual claim still comes from `01-candidate-profile.md` - a past tailored draft does not vouch for its own accuracy.
**Caveat - use `\needspace` before entries, never before `\section` headings.** A section-level `\needspace` pushes the entire section (heading plus content) to the next page whenever the request does not fit, stranding empty space above and typically *adding* a page instead of saving one. Apply it only to the individual `\cventry` that actually orphans, and only after a compile shows the orphan.
**Problem: one trailing section spills to page 3 (e.g., References alone on page 3)**
Add `\enlargethispage{2-3\baselineskip}` before a late section (e.g., before `\section{Honors and Awards}`) to stretch page 2 by a few lines. This is the standard LaTeX rescue for near-miss overflows.
**Problem: 3 pages with significant content on page 3**
Cut content — do not compress geometry or `\vspace`. See "Relevance-weighted cutting" below for the rule.
**Problem: content finishes early on page 2 (feels thin)**
Restore the highest-relevance item that was previously cut — a CV that ends mid-page 2 looks incomplete.
Most employers run CVs through an ATS before a human sees them, and the ATS reads the PDF's embedded **text layer**, not the rendered page. A CV can pass visual inspection and still extract as garbage. After the layout passes the compile-and-inspect loop, verify the text layer:
`pdftotext` comes from [poppler](https://poppler.freedesktop.org/), not the TeX distribution - it is an **optional** dependency. If it is not installed, skip the mechanical check with a warning and rely on the visual PDF read for keyword coverage.
What to check in the extraction:
- **Contact details as literal text.** The stock template's fontawesome contact icons extract as glyph names (`MOBILE-ALT`, `Envelope`) - harmless noise, because the actual address and number are printed beside them. The failure mode is a contact detail carried *only* by an icon or a hyperlink (like the `LinkedIn` link text, whose URL is not in the text layer): invisible to an ATS. The email address must always appear as printed text.
- **No garbled output.** `(cid:NNN)` markers or `�` characters mean a font is embedded without a Unicode mapping - an ATS sees the same garbage. This shows up with unusual fonts in custom templates, not with the stock moderncv setup under lualatex.
- **Reading order.** The stock banking style is single-column, so extraction order matches visual order. Custom templates (via `/add-template`) with sidebars or multi-column layouts can interleave unrelated lines; if extraction order is scrambled, the user is trading ATS compatibility for looks and should be told.
- **Keyword coverage.** Match the posting's required/preferred terms against the extracted text, in the posting's language. Prefer the posting's exact term over a synonym when it is truthfully applicable - ATS matching is often literal. Never add a keyword the profile does not support.
## Relevance-weighted cutting (the right way to shrink a CV)
**Cut by signal, not by section.** Static priority lists ("remove oldest education first, then shorten the earliest role...") are wrong when a relevant "lower-priority" item is competing with an irrelevant "higher-priority" item. An older-role bullet that speaks directly to the posting is worth more than a recent-role bullet that does not.
For every candidate line, score three things:
1.**Relevance to THIS posting** — does the line hit a named tool, keyword, or stated responsibility in the job ad?
2.**Uniqueness** — is it the only place this claim appears, or is it duplicated elsewhere in the CV?
3.**Narrative load** — does the cover letter depend on it? If cutting the line would force you to rewrite a cover-letter paragraph, it is load-bearing.
Cut the lowest-total-score line first, regardless of which section it sits in.
### Practical order of cuts (easiest → last resort)
1.**Redundancy.** If an achievement appears in both Core Competencies AND a role bullet, the Core Competencies version is usually the cleaner cut (the experience bullet is more concrete evidence).
2.**Profile-statement fluff.** A sentence that just restates what Publications or Skills will show. ("Peer-reviewed publications on X..." is already a Publications entry — profile can claim it once and stop.)
3.**Low-relevance experience bullets.** A bullet about work that does not touch posting keywords, wherever it sits. This cuts across sections before touching the structural list.
4.**Low-relevance supporting content.** An older-role bullet that does not speak to the target role. A certification that does not touch the posting's stack. A language entry that can be condensed to one line.
5.**Low-relevance publications.** Keep 1-2 publications that best match the posting. Cut the rest before touching experience bullets.
6.**Last-resort structural cuts.** Oldest education entry, tightening an older role to 2 bullets, collapsing Certifications into a single line. These only happen if the relevance-weighted cuts above have already been exhausted.
### Pitfalls to avoid
- Do not mechanically cut from the bottom of a static section list without checking relevance. "Cut the oldest role first" is wrong if that role is literally about the skill the posting asks for.
- Do not cut the one concrete example the cover letter leans on. Relevance is measured against the cover letter you wrote, not just the job posting — interviewers will have read both.
- Do not cut to fit if the fit is borderline (2.02 pages). Prefer `\enlargethispage{2-3\baselineskip}` on a late section for near-misses; reserve content cuts for genuine overflow (content on page 3 that is more than a single trailing section).
